Ran Tao

This decision follows a 13-day trial regarding the breakdown of a six-year marriage with no children, focusing on property division and damages arising from domestic violence.

The court addresses claims for constructive and resulting trusts, the characterization of family advances as loans or gifts, equalization of net family property, post-separation adjustments, and damages for family violence.

The court finds that the applicant is entitled to a 50% interest in both properties by way of constructive trust, that certain family advances were loans and others gifts, and awards damages for family violence.

A permanent restraining order is also granted.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed both the main appeal and cross-appeal in a dispute over the beneficial ownership and occupation of a house acquired during a brief marriage.

The court upheld the application judge’s finding that Ms. Qu was the 100% beneficial owner of the house by way of resulting trust, rejecting Mr. Zhang’s arguments regarding the presumption of joint tenancy and the sufficiency of evidence.

The court also upheld the award of occupation rent to Ms. Qu and declined to order additional security for potential future repairs, finding no error in the application judge’s approach or findings.

The court granted all relief sought by Ms. Komuro in an uncontested family law trial, including lump sum spousal support, an equalization payment, a declaration of beneficial interest in the matrimonial home, and a vesting order.

The decision details the basis for imputing income to Mr. Lu, the application of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, and the law of resulting trusts in the family context.

The court found Mr. Lu had failed to comply with disclosure and court orders, drew adverse inferences, and ordered costs against him.

The applicant, Ms. Wang, sought costs after successfully obtaining a comprehensive parenting order and a detailed summer schedule for the child, following the respondent's (Dr. Tang) unilateral suspension of parenting time.

Ms. Wang sought full costs of $9,661.50.

Dr. Tang argued for divided success or deferral of costs.

The court found Ms. Wang was the successful party on the dominant issue and that Dr. Tang's litigation conduct was unreasonable, particularly his refusal to mediate.

Despite Ms. Wang's inadequate Bill of Costs and lack of an Offer to Settle, the court awarded partial costs of $6,780 to Ms. Wang, considering the principles of indemnification, settlement encouragement, and discouraging inappropriate behaviour.

This decision addresses cross-motions concerning parenting time and decision-making responsibility for a 15-year-old child.

The father sought to suspend the mother's parenting time, gain sole decision-making, and dispense with the mother's consent for various matters, citing past conduct.

The mother sought to restore weekend parenting time and alternating weeks during the summer.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding his requests disproportionate and noting his lack of willingness to support the child's relationship with the mother.

The court granted the mother's motion, ordering a specific parenting schedule, including adjustments for the father's pre-planned summer activities, and emphasized the need to resolve outstanding financial issues, including the sale of the matrimonial home.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment for damages arising from a failed real estate assignment agreement.

The defendant repudiated the agreement by failing to make reasonable efforts to obtain the builder's consent, which was a true condition precedent.

The plaintiff accepted the repudiation and sought damages for lost profit based on the unit's value at the original closing date, nearly two years after the breach.

The court found the defendant breached the agreement but assessed damages at the date of the breach, not the later closing date, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate why they could not have re-entered the market to mitigate losses.

The plaintiff was awarded nominal damages of $5,000 and special damages of $1,130, with the claim for interest on the deposit denied as per the assignment agreement.

The Applicant brought an urgent motion seeking the return of the child to Ontario, an order vesting property in her name, orders restraining property depletion, and leave to file a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL).

The court dismissed the motion.

It found the child's habitual residence was in China, not Canada, and declined jurisdiction over the child's return.

For the CPL, the Applicant failed to provide an undertaking for damages and did not sufficiently demonstrate a triable issue regarding her interest in the property, which was not a matrimonial home and was registered solely in the Respondent's name.

The court also noted that China appeared to be the more appropriate forum for resolving the parties' claims, given the child's and Respondent's residence, and the location of most marital assets.