Ross Norman MacDonald

The plaintiff, an 85-year-old widow, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a vesting order for a condominium unit jointly owned with her adult child, the defendant.

The plaintiff claimed the property was transferred into joint tenancy for estate planning purposes without any intention of a gift, creating a resulting trust.

The defendant refused to reconvey the property and counterclaimed for human rights violations and 'derogatory behaviour' related to his gender transition.

The court found that the defendant failed to rebut the presumption of a resulting trust, as no gift was intended.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion for a vesting order and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim, finding no legal or factual basis for the human rights allegations.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiff under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff had sued for specific performance or damages of $600,000 arising from a dispute over the purchase and expansion of commercial condominium units.

The defendants argued the plaintiff lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a potential costs award.

The Master dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff had an ongoing business, significant bank balances, and a steady rental income stream, meaning there was no good reason to believe it had insufficient assets.

The respondent husband moved for the pre-trial sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The applicant wife opposed, citing concerns about the husband's finances, potential trauma to the children, and her desire to purchase his interest.

The court found compelling reasons for the sale, including the husband's prima facie right, the parties' inability to afford the home, and insufficient evidence of harm to the children.

The motion was granted, ordering the sale of the home, but providing the wife with an opportunity to purchase the husband's interest based on an appraisal, subject to specific financial adjustments and timelines.

The court also made interim child and spousal support orders.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

Prior to the determination of the appeal, the parties reached a settlement.

In accordance with the agreed terms of settlement, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay costs of $5,000 to the plaintiff respondent and $5,000 to the other respondents.

The defendant brought a motion seeking relief from forfeiture and to set aside a foreclosure order on the basis that he had not received notice of the foreclosure proceedings and that the mortgaged property was sold below market value.

The court found that the statement of claim had been properly served under Rule 16.03(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and accepted the process server’s affidavit of service as credible.

The court also held that the purchasers of the property were bona fide purchasers for value and that expert appraisal evidence supported the sale price.

No exceptional circumstances or defects in the foreclosure or sale process were established to justify equitable intervention.

The motion for relief from forfeiture was therefore dismissed.

The parties separated after a 22-year common law relationship.

The applicant husband and respondent wife had extensively integrated their finances, pooling incomes and sharing expenses.

The court found the parties were engaged in a joint family venture and that the husband was unjustly enriched by retaining a disproportionate share of assets, including RRSPs, a life insurance policy, and Aeroplan miles.

The court ordered an equal division of joint assets, an RRSP rollover to equalize retirement savings, a declaration of trust for half the life insurance policy, and lump sum spousal support for the wife.

Following the dismissal of an appeal seeking to set aside an arbitration award concerning custody, child support, and spousal support, the successful party sought substantial costs.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, emphasizing the presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs and assessing the reasonableness of the parties’ conduct throughout the litigation.

The court found the appellant’s conduct excessive, including the presentation of voluminous and inefficient materials, while the respondent’s counsel exercised restraint and efficiency.

After reviewing the bill of costs and relevant factors, the court exercised its discretion to award partial indemnity costs to the successful party.

Costs were fixed at $70,000 inclusive of HST, payable in instalments.

The applicant appealed a family law arbitration award that ordered him to pay retroactive and ongoing spousal support, child support, and an equalization payment.

The applicant argued the arbitrator made palpable and overriding errors in imputing income, drawing adverse inferences regarding his assets, and failing to apply the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the arbitrator's reasons were adequate, the findings of fact were supported by the evidence, and there was no error in principle or reasonable apprehension of bias.

Following a trial determining beneficial ownership of a former matrimonial home, the successful applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis exceeding $35,000.

The respondent argued that no costs should be awarded due to alleged unfairness, financial disparity, litigation conduct, and the nature of the applicant’s settlement offer.

The court rejected most of the respondent’s submissions and confirmed the applicant’s entitlement to costs as the largely successful party.

However, because the applicant did not fully achieve the terms of his settlement offer, the court limited recovery to partial indemnity costs.

After adjusting hourly rates and reducing excessive preparation time, the court fixed costs at $19,000 plus disbursements and taxes.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order granting the respondents $59,379.91 owing on a first mortgage and possession of the property.

The motion judge found no genuine issue for trial, as the mortgage had matured and remained in default.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding no evidence that the mortgage was renewed or that post-dated cheques for the following year were negotiated.

The appeal was dismissed with no costs.