Ted G. Reczulski

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs' causes of action were statute-barred due to a limitation period and that a mortgage commitment obtained by the plaintiff was unenforceable.

The court found that damages did not accrue until the plaintiffs obtained an unfulfillable mortgage commitment, placing the claim within the limitation period.

The court also rejected the argument that the mortgage commitment was unenforceable, stating that the defendants could not rely on their own default to make such a claim.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The appellant wife appealed the trial judge's equalization of net family property and costs award, arguing that post-separation losses in a limited partnership should be shared and that divergent notional tax rates should apply to taxable assets.

The respondent husband cross-appealed the imputation of income to him and the dismissal of his spousal support claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding the wife's exclusive control of the investment, the lack of evidence for divergent tax rates, the imputation of income based on the husband's credibility and lifestyle, and the discretionary denial of spousal support.

Siblings sought an order under s. 3(1) of the Partition Act for the sale of a jointly owned parcel of land inherited through a family arrangement.

The defendant claimed beneficial ownership of the property through a resulting trust, asserting he had funded the purchase and mortgage payments and that the parents held title in trust for him.

The court rejected the resulting trust claim, finding documentary and testimonial evidence established the property was intended to be held in trust for all six siblings in equal shares.

Expert appraisal evidence demonstrated that a dwelling constructed by the defendant added no value to the property’s highest and best use as future residential development land.

The court ordered sale of the property with proceeds divided equally among the six siblings and dismissed the defendant’s counterclaim.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging the employer unlawfully interfered with its organizing campaign by soliciting grievances, providing additional help, and sending anti-union communications.

The Board found that the employer violated section 64 of the Labour Relations Act by soliciting grievances and conferring benefits (part-time help) to undermine the union.

However, the employer's written communications were deemed lawful free speech.

The Board declined to grant automatic certification under section 8, finding that the true wishes of the employees could be ascertained after applying remedial measures, including a posting and union access to employees.

The application for certification was dismissed.