Philip Jacob George Smith

This estate application concerned whether residual beneficiaries made an enforceable oral agreement in or about 2009 to transfer estate land to one beneficiary, whose will later gifted the property to a family member.

The responding estate trustee denied any enforceable agreement and relied on s. 4 of the Statute of Frauds.

The court found an oral agreement existed based on cumulative direct and circumstantial evidence, including post-agreement conduct and contemporaneous documents.

The court held the agreement was enforceable through the doctrine of part performance, including waiver of an option over related estate land and longstanding tax payments referable to the disputed property.

Relief ordering transfer of the Bush Lot was granted, while claims for trustee removal, passing of accounts, and damages were adjourned sine die.

The defendant, Greenvac Inc., brought a motion to transfer the action from Goderich, Ontario, to Toronto, Ontario, pursuant to Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Greenvac argued that all events giving rise to the action occurred in Toronto, and its witnesses and counsel were located there.

The plaintiff, Britespan Building Systems of Ontario Inc., opposed the motion, asserting that Goderich was the most convenient venue for its headquarters, counsel, and numerous witnesses.

The court, applying a holistic consideration of the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b), found that the moving party failed to establish that Toronto was "significantly better" than the plaintiff's chosen venue.

Consequently, Greenvac's motion to transfer the action was dismissed.

Following settlement of a family law motion to change concerning termination of child and spousal support, the remaining issue before the court was costs.

The applicant sought over $42,000 in costs arising from the respondent’s unsuccessful attempt to terminate support and related proceedings.

The court reviewed the parties’ conduct, the settlement outcome, and multiple offers to settle in accordance with s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 24(5) of the Family Law Rules.

The court found the applicant’s position was not unreasonable and rejected a claim relating to income tax penalties as outside the scope of a costs determination.

Costs were awarded to the applicant in a reduced amount.

The moving defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike portions of a statement of claim alleging defamation, fraud, conspiracy, and related misconduct arising from an alleged advance fee loan scam.

The court found that the pleadings failed to set out the essential elements of defamation, including the attribution of specific defamatory words to the moving defendants.

Although the pleading was deficient and did not comply with Rule 25.06 requirements for material facts, the court held it was not plain and obvious that the defect could not be cured by amendment.

Leave to amend was therefore granted within 30 days.

The court declined to make further orders regarding corporate representation but invited written submissions on costs.