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.

The respondent husband was successful on a motion for disclosure and sought costs.

The applicant wife, who was self-represented, failed to make an offer to settle or provide costs submissions.

Applying the Family Law Rules and the principles from Serra v. Serra, the court emphasized that litigants of modest means must still act reasonably and attempt settlement.

The court awarded the husband $6,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The respondent father brought a motion for reunification counselling with his daughter, interim spousal support, interim disbursements, and an equalization payment advance.

The applicant mother opposed the relief.

The court found it had jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act to order reunification therapy and directed the parties to engage a specified therapist.

The court awarded the father interim spousal support of $500 per month but dismissed his claims for interim disbursements and an equalization advance, finding the mother lacked the means and the test for an advance was not met.

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.

Following the dismissal of the defendant's appeal regarding an abortive condominium unit sale, the successful plaintiff sought costs of the appeal.

The plaintiff claimed substantial indemnity costs of $18,310.80 or partial indemnity costs of $12,135.07.

The court found it unnecessary to determine the scale of costs, as the amounts claimed were excessive for a Small Claims Court appeal.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs fixed at $6,750 all inclusive and ordered the release of funds held in court.

In a family law contempt motion arising from alleged non-compliance with access and reunification orders, the father sought a finding of contempt against the mother for frustrating access to a teenage child and failing to support therapeutic reunification.

Applying the strict three-part contempt test, the court held that the original access provision in the 2009 order was not sufficiently clear and unequivocal to ground a contempt finding.

The balance of the contempt allegations under later orders was not determined on the written record because the factual controversy required viva voce evidence, including evidence from the child and other witnesses.

The motion was therefore dismissed in part and otherwise adjourned, with costs reserved.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering the return of a $16,000 deposit to the respondent purchaser in an aborted condominium real estate transaction.

The purchaser had refused to close after reviewing the status certificate, which revealed a special assessment and higher common expenses than warranted in the agreement of purchase and sale.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the purchaser was legally justified in refusing to close due to the non-satisfaction of a condition precedent regarding the status certificate, as well as the vendor's misrepresentation regarding the absence of special assessments.

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.