Paul Parlee

The plaintiffs, individual unit owners in a retirement condominium, brought a motion for summary judgment claiming the defendants acted oppressively.

The defendants, who owned the majority of the units, managed the condominium, and provided services, were not requiring their own tenants to pay the mandatory service fees that the plaintiffs were required to pay under the condominium declaration and bylaws.

The court found that the defendants' conduct was unfairly prejudicial and unfairly disregarded the plaintiffs' interests, as it violated their reasonable expectation that all occupants would be treated equally.

The court ordered that the declaration and bylaws be enforced, requiring all occupants to enter into the same services agreement, but declined to award damages or alter the board's composition.

The applicant sought compensation for unjust enrichment for her years of unpaid labour on her husband's family's dairy farm, as well as an equalization payment and retroactive child support.

The court found that the applicant had enriched both her husband and his mother through her extensive work on the farm and suffered a corresponding deprivation without juristic reason.

The court awarded the applicant $247,029.40 for unjust enrichment based on a value received approach, and a $60,000.00 equalization payment for her husband's equitable interest in the matrimonial home.

The claim for retroactive child support was dismissed.

The applicant wife moved for an order for the partition and sale of the matrimonial home and farm property so she could purchase her own residence.

The respondent husband opposed the motion and offered to pay a $470,000 advance on her equalization payment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that an immediate sale would be oppressive as it would force the respondent and their daughter off the property and disrupt the farming operations.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the $470,000 advance on equalization.

The plaintiff accounting firm sued for payment of unpaid professional fees totaling $62,061.25 for accounting and advisory services provided to the defendants over several years.

The defendants acknowledged that services were provided but argued the bills were excessive and that their balance had previously been represented as nil.

The court accepted the credibility of the plaintiff’s principal witness and found that substantial services had been performed, but concluded the billing documentation lacked sufficient detail to justify the full claim.

The court reduced the account by approximately 15% and apportioned liability between corporate services and personal services related to matrimonial litigation.

Judgment was granted for reduced amounts against the corporate defendants and the individual defendant personally.