Simon Van Duffelen

The applicant, residing in a long-term care facility, sought equalization of family property following a divorce.

A motion was brought on his behalf to declare him a 'special party' under the Family Law Rules due to mental incapacity and to appoint his daughter as his litigation guardian.

The respondent opposed the motion, questioning the medical evidence and the daughter's suitability.

The court found the uncontested medical evidence from the applicant's treating physician sufficient to establish incapacity.

The court granted the motion, declaring the applicant a special party and appointing his daughter as litigation guardian.

The defendant brought a motion to strike various paragraphs of the plaintiff's Statement of Claim, arguing they failed to disclose material facts, constituted argument, or were prejudicial.

The court applied Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing a generous reading of pleadings.

While the defendant made concessions during the hearing, the court ultimately struck only paragraph 53 and the second sentences of paragraphs 51 and 52, finding them argumentative and conclusory.

The majority of the plaintiff's pleading, including sections detailing the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act and factual narrative, was upheld as proper.

The defendant was charged with selling a new home not previously occupied without being registered as a vendor under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The defendant purchased an incomplete home by power of sale in October 2009 and re-listed it for sale in February 2010 without ever occupying it.

The home was sold to the purchaser in April 2010 prior to obtaining an occupancy permit.

The court found that the defendant was a vendor within the meaning of the Act and should have been registered with Tarion.

The court rejected the defendant's argument that the home was exempt from the Act because the original builder had declared it exempt on the building permit application.

The court applied a contextual and purposive interpretation of the Act, emphasizing that the defendant never occupied the home and re-sold it prior to completion and obtaining an occupancy permit.

An appeal from convictions under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appellant was convicted of three offences: constructing a new home without being registered as a builder, commencing construction without notifying Tarion and paying the prescribed fee, and knowingly furnishing false information in an enrolment application.

The appeal court found that the trial court erred in admitting documentary evidence without compliance with the best evidence rule and without proper authentication.

The court also found that hearsay evidence was improperly admitted.

As a result, there was insufficient admissible evidence to support the convictions, and the appeal was allowed with acquittals substituted.