Pia Hundal

The respondent sought substantial indemnity costs from the applicant following a consolidated application concerning beneficial ownership of a property, arguing he was the more successful party.

The applicant contended that both parties equally succeeded and lost, as neither established sole ownership and both were awarded an equal interest in the property, with no payments owed between them.

The court found that success was equally divided, as both parties failed in their symmetrical claims for sole ownership and related payments.

Consequently, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs of the consolidated application, and also declined to award costs for the costs submissions.

The applicant mother and her deceased daughter purchased a property as joint tenants in 1994.

The daughter lived in the property with her husband (the respondent) and children until her death in 2019.

Following the daughter's death, the mother claimed sole beneficial ownership by right of survivorship and sought occupation rent.

The respondent husband claimed the estate was the sole beneficial owner or, alternatively, a 50% owner as a tenant in common under s. 26(1) of the Family Law Act.

The court found that both the mother and daughter contributed to the purchase and neither established a resulting or constructive trust.

Because the property was a matrimonial home, the joint tenancy was deemed severed immediately before the daughter's death under s. 26(1) of the Family Law Act.

The property is held by the mother and the estate as tenants in common, each with a 50% interest.

Claims for unjust enrichment and occupation rent were dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion seeking deductions from the respondent's share of their late father's estate, alleging the respondent financially enriched herself while acting as attorney for property.

The applicant also sought an order for the distribution of disputed chattels.

The court reviewed the respondent's informal accounting and ordered a deduction of $10,764.52 from her share of the estate for unaccounted withdrawals and inappropriate expenses.

The court dismissed the applicant's request for the disputed chattels, instead directing the estate trustee to sell them and divide the proceeds equally between the siblings.

The applicant sought interim dependants' support of $45,000 under the Succession Law Reform Act, claiming she was the common law spouse of the deceased.

The respondents, the deceased's daughters and family, disputed the relationship, providing conflicting evidence that the deceased did not cohabit with the applicant.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that due to the conflicting affidavit evidence and lack of independent corroboration, the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case or special circumstances justifying interim funding.