Robert C. Watt

This uncontested trial endorsement addresses the division of net family property, responsibility for joint lines of credit, and spousal support following the separation of Maria Teresa Del Grosso and Peter (Pietro) Del Grosso.

The court found insufficient evidence to order an equalization payment or to require the respondent to pay off joint lines of credit, due to lack of financial disclosure.

The applicant was awarded spousal support based on imputed income and her demonstrated need, as well as costs.

The decision follows recent appellate guidance on the necessity of adequate evidence for property division.

This uncontested trial endorsement addresses property and spousal support claims following the separation of Maria Teresa Del Grosso and Peter (Pietro) Del Grosso after 35 years of marriage.

The court identifies evidentiary deficiencies regarding the applicant’s claims for equalization of net family property and reimbursement of interest payments on joint lines of credit, as well as the quantum of spousal support.

The trial is adjourned pending further affidavit evidence.

The plaintiff challenged the 2016 will of his deceased sister, which left her entire estate to her stepson (the defendant) and transferred her home into joint tenancy with him.

The plaintiff argued the deceased lacked testamentary capacity due to cognitive decline and delusions, and was unduly influenced by the defendant.

The defendant counterclaimed for the return of $247,322.95 that the deceased had transferred to the plaintiff and another sibling in 2014, alleging it was taken without her knowledge.

The court dismissed both the claim and the counterclaim.

The court found the deceased had the requisite capacity to execute the 2016 will and property transfer, relying on the assessments of her treating physician and a geriatric specialist.

The court also found no evidence of undue influence.

The counterclaim was dismissed as the court found it unnecessary to determine the exact reasons for the 2014 transfer, concluding it did not need to be undone.

The applicant brought an application to remove an exhaust vent encroaching on her property.

The respondents removed the encroachment before the hearing, leaving only the issue of costs.

To determine costs, the court assessed whether the applicant would have succeeded on the merits.

The court interpreted a prior Resolution Agreement between the parties and found it did not grant an easement for the encroachment.

Concluding the applicant would have been successful, the court awarded her costs of $8,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

The applicant mother sought to increase child support from $311 monthly to $650 monthly based on an imputed income of $71,300 for the respondent father, a self-employed contractor.

The respondent opposed the increase and argued his income was accurately reflected in his tax returns.

The court found that the respondent had unreported income based on discrepancies between bank deposits and reported gross income, as well as evidence of debt repayment inconsistent with his claimed income.

The court imputed annual income of $71,114 to the respondent and ordered child support of $648 monthly commencing April 1, 2015, with arrears to be paid at $100 monthly.

The plaintiff, Lidia Kuleshnyk, brought a motion seeking an order to preserve future vendor take-back mortgage payments from the sale of property owned by the defendant, Herta Kuleshnyk, by having them paid into court.

The motion was brought pursuant to Rules 45.01 and 45.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court applied the three-part test from Sadie Moranis Realty Corp. v. 1667038 Ontario Inc., finding that the plaintiff established a claim to a specific identifiable fund (future mortgage payments) and a serious issue to be tried regarding her entitlement under a 2009 agreement.

While there was no direct evidence of dissipation, the court found a real concern given the defendant's prior actions (reverse mortgage without knowledge).

The court ordered the final mortgage payment of approximately $1,581,000 due on April 8, 2019, to be paid into court, allowing the defendant to retain earlier payments and funds held in trust to manage tax obligations.

No costs were awarded as the result was divided.

Three defendants were charged with making false or misleading statements to insurers under the Insurance Act of Ontario.

Aksana Miakouchkina, operating manager of Ontario Disability Management Inc., was charged with knowingly making false statements on treatment plan forms (OCF-18s) submitted to insurers.

The corporation was charged on a vicarious liability basis.

Gregori Miakouchkine, the sole director and president, was charged with failing to take reasonable care to prevent the corporation from committing the offence.

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt on all counts and acquitted all three defendants.