R. Kostyniuk

The bankrupt applied for an absolute discharge from bankruptcy, which was opposed by his former spouse and the bankruptcy trustee.

The bankruptcy was filed shortly after the former spouse obtained a family law judgment for equalization and costs.

The court found that the bankrupt had transferred significant assets to his mother and a business associate prior to bankruptcy to defeat his former spouse's claims, and failed to disclose these transfers or a personal injury settlement to the trustee.

The court held that the bankrupt's conduct was evasive and untruthful, and that he used the bankruptcy process to avoid his family law obligations.

The court refused an absolute discharge and granted a conditional discharge requiring the bankrupt to pay $170,036.50 to the trustee, representing the compromised equalization claim and costs.

The mother brought a cross-motion for temporary custody, child support, and further questioning of the father, while the father sought to amend his pleadings.

The court granted the father leave to amend his pleadings and granted the mother temporary custody on consent.

On the issue of child support, the court found the father was intentionally unemployed and imputed an annual income of $100,000, reducing his previous $150,000 salary to account for the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court also ordered the father to attend up to six hours of further questioning.

Following a trial regarding an insurance claim for a fire loss, the court determined the costs of the action.

The plaintiff was awarded $25,468.64 at trial, which was less than the defendants' Rule 49 offer of $50,000 made prior to trial.

The court held that a subsequent, higher offer made by the defendants on the first day of trial did not revoke the earlier Rule 49 offer.

Consequently, the plaintiff was entitled to costs up to the date of the offer, and the defendants were entitled to costs thereafter.

Setting off the amounts, the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants a net sum of $15,000 in costs.

The plaintiff's home and its contents were destroyed in a fire.

The plaintiff had a $1,000,000 home insurance policy with the defendants.

The defendants paid out over $834,000, but the plaintiff sought the remainder of the policy limits, claiming additional construction costs, administrative expenses for acting as his own general contractor, additional living expenses, and higher valuations for his destroyed contents, including an art collection.

The plaintiff also sought general damages.

The court found that because the plaintiff chose to build a significantly larger home rather than replacing his original home, he was only entitled to the actual cash value of the original home, entitling the defendants to a set-off for depreciation.

The court dismissed the claims for administrative expenses, additional living expenses, and general damages, finding the plaintiff responsible for construction delays and the insurer's conduct reasonable.

The court awarded the plaintiff an additional $74,936.49 for the contents of the house, resulting in a net judgment of $25,468.64 after applying the defendants' set-off.

The plaintiff sued two doctors for medical malpractice, alleging that a failure to notify her of a referral appointment led to prolonged casting of her fractured fingers and a poorer outcome.

The court found that the referring doctor's office had properly notified the plaintiff of the appointment, which she failed to attend.

Furthermore, the court accepted expert evidence that the prolonged casting met the standard of care given the severity of the fractures, and that any delay in mobilization did not cause the plaintiff's permanent impairment.

The action was dismissed.