Tanya C. Davies

The defendants sought clarification of a trial decision regarding the quantum of overtime payable to the plaintiff, arguing that business closures and vacations should reduce the amount.

They also asked the court to revisit a finding regarding a fraudulent withdrawal of cheques.

Applying Rule 59.06(1), the court held it could only correct accidental slips or omissions.

The court found no evidence to support reducing overtime for business closures or family vacations, as the plaintiff was not cross-examined on these points.

However, the court corrected its original decision to exclude overtime for two specific vacation periods taken by the plaintiff.

The court declined to change its finding on the fraudulent cheques, noting the timeline of the cheques supported the original conclusion.

The applicant sought to expedite a motion to change a temporary parenting order, citing urgency based on a custody access assessment report.

The respondent opposed the expedited hearing.

The court denied the request, finding that the expressed urgency in the report did not warrant priority over other cases, the respondent required time for preparation and questioning, and the existing parenting schedule was not so intolerable as to demand acceleration.

The motion was adjourned to a regularly scheduled date.

The plaintiff worked as a live-in caregiver and housekeeper for the defendants, who were her sister and brother-in-law, for nine years.

After her employment ended, she sued for unpaid wages, overtime, unauthorized withdrawals from her bank account, and wrongful dismissal.

The court found that the limitation period did not bar her claims due to fraudulent concealment and her inability to discover the underpayments.

The court determined she was dismissed without cause, awarded 10 months' reasonable notice, ordered repayment of unauthorized withdrawals made under a power of attorney, and found she was entitled to overtime pay for working 58 hours per week.

Claims for punitive damages and a higher oral contract salary were dismissed.

The respondent wife brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicants' claims for the return of a 50% interest in a property, wedding expenses, and wedding gifts following the parties' separation after a short marriage.

The applicants alleged the property transfer was conditional, fraudulently induced, and signed under duress.

The court applied the expanded fact-finding powers for summary judgment and found that a valid, unconditional gift of the property had been made, with no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding fraud, duress, or oral conditions.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the applicants' claims were dismissed.

Family law trial addressing custody, access, child support, spousal support, and equalization following the breakdown of a short marriage.

The respondent claimed a beneficial interest in a residential property held in the applicant’s name pursuant to a declaration of trust for her mother and alleged the property constituted a matrimonial home or, alternatively, that he was entitled to compensation through unjust enrichment.

The court rejected both arguments, finding the property was an investment owned beneficially by the applicant’s mother and never occupied as a matrimonial home.

The respondent failed to prove financial contributions sufficient to establish deprivation for unjust enrichment.

Sole custody of the child was granted to the applicant with supervised access to the respondent and guideline child support based on the respondent’s income.

The court determined costs following the dismissal of a respondent’s motion seeking an order that funds be paid into court pending determination of his claim.

Although the applicant was successful on the motion and sought approximately $17,000 in costs, the court found that her conduct regarding disclosure contributed to the procedural complications and delays.

The court noted that significant disclosure should have been provided voluntarily and that the applicant had incorrectly denied receiving certain disclosure.

Considering the circumstances, the court declined to award full indemnity costs and fixed costs at $6,000 to the applicant and $500 to her mother.

The court also cautioned counsel that written submissions must always be shared with opposing counsel.

The respondent brought a motion seeking an order requiring the applicant and an added party (the applicant’s mother) to pay into court the net proceeds from the sale of a property alleged to be a former matrimonial home.

The moving party claimed a trust interest and alleged cash contributions toward renovations, asserting unjust enrichment and seeking preservation of funds pending determination of property claims.

The court reviewed the evidentiary record, including financial disclosure and the moving party’s inconsistent affidavits regarding the alleged cash contributions.

The court found the evidence insufficient to establish a prima facie case for unjust enrichment or to justify a mandatory interlocutory injunction requiring payment of funds into court.

While a triable issue remained as to whether the property may have been a matrimonial home, the motion was dismissed, subject to continuing an order restraining depletion of the applicant’s property under s. 12(a) of the Family Law Act.