Sender Herschorn

The plaintiffs challenged the validity of a share transfer agreement entered into between two of the defendants, which resulted in one defendant becoming the majority shareholder of the corporation.

The court applied an objective test to determine the parties' intention to contract and found that the agreement contained all necessary elements of a contract.

The court rejected arguments that the agreement was merely an agreement to agree or that it was invalid due to technical deficiencies under the Business Corporations Act.

The share transfer agreement was declared valid and binding.

In an uncontested family law trial following the striking of the respondent's pleadings for failure to provide financial disclosure, the applicant sought division of jointly owned properties and assets from joint family ventures.

The court awarded the applicant her 50% share of the net proceeds from the sale of the family home, reimbursement for a judgment paid on the respondent's behalf, 50% of the value of a jointly owned restaurant, and 50% of the respondent's pension.

The applicant's claim regarding a past restaurant venture was dismissed for lack of traceable proceeds, and her claim regarding another property was deferred for further evidence.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a full indemnity basis due to the respondent's bad faith.

The applicant father brought a motion to reinstate access to his 11-year-old son after the respondent mother unilaterally terminated it.

The mother argued the father was cruel, the child did not want to see him alone, and the father could not care for the child's special medical needs.

The court found the mother's evidence lacked credibility and was filled with hyperbole.

The court held that financial disputes do not justify terminating access and ordered a gradual reinstatement of the father's parenting time.

The court declined to order a police enforcement clause, finding it would be counterproductive.

This is a costs decision in a family law matter involving custody, access, and child support.

The respondent sought sole custody of the parties' son and child support, and was substantially successful.

The applicant sought physical access and an order preventing disparagement, and was unsuccessful.

The court awarded costs to the respondent but at a reduced amount (45% of claimed costs) to balance the objectives of indemnification, settlement promotion, and recognition of the applicant's reasonable litigation conduct and early settlement efforts.

In an appeal from a Small Claims Court judgment concerning the return of a condominium purchase deposit, the respondent brought a motion for leave to adduce fresh evidence consisting of email communications between the appellant and his lawyer.

The emails related to whether a contractual deadline for satisfying a status certificate condition had been extended.

The court held that the communications were previously unavailable due to solicitor-client privilege and became producible only after the appellant waived privilege by attaching them to a separate claim against his lawyer.

The evidence was authentic and relevant to the issues on appeal, particularly the determination of whether a new trial should be ordered.

Leave to admit the emails was granted, but leave to introduce pleadings from the separate action against the lawyer was refused.

The applicants sought orders under the Substitute Decisions Act appointing them as guardians of the person and property of an elderly individual alleged to be incapable of managing her affairs.

The court considered medical evidence, family affidavits, and video evidence suggesting the individual was vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation.

Evidence also raised concerns about financial mismanagement by an existing attorney under a power of attorney.

The court found the individual incapable of managing property and personal care, removed the existing attorney, and appointed the applicants as joint guardians.

A formal capacity assessment and management plan oversight were also ordered.

The applicant brought a motion for contempt against the respondent for failing to provide annual income disclosure, failing to consent to direct insurance reimbursements, and failing to attend examinations in aid of execution.

The court found the respondent in contempt for failing to provide income disclosure, as it breached a clear prior order, and provided terms to purge the contempt.

The other contempt claims were dismissed because no prior orders compelled those specific actions.

The court declined to award costs to the successful applicant, finding her counsel's conduct unreasonable for advancing unavailable contempt grounds and seeking incarceration.