Thomas MacLennan

The applicant father brought a motion to expand his parenting time with his four-year-old daughter to include overnights and to lift the requirement for supervision.

The respondent mother opposed, citing historical concerns about the father's mental health and alcohol use.

The court found that the mother failed to satisfy the onus of showing that supervised access remained necessary, noting the father provided medical evidence indicating he had no current mental health issues or substance abuse problems.

The motion was granted, allowing for a gradual increase to unsupervised, overnight parenting time.

Following the death of their mother, three brothers brought an action on behalf of her estate against their fourth brother, alleging he misappropriated significant estate assets including real estate, securities, and gold through joint accounts and transfers.

The defendant claimed the assets were inter vivos gifts.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the presumption of resulting trust and found the defendant failed to rebut it, noting the mother's lack of capacity due to dementia and significant inconsistencies in the defendant's evidence.

The court granted a tracing order, awarding the estate a 69.5% interest in a property purchased by the defendant with the misappropriated funds, plus monetary damages.

The defendant's counterclaims for improvident sale of the family home and return of TFSA funds were dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion to transfer a Small Claims Court action to the Superior Court of Justice where the defendant had filed a counterclaim exceeding the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court.

The counterclaim alleged breach of fiduciary duty and sought damages representing the value of an equity golf club membership allegedly confiscated following changes to membership policies.

The court held that the issues raised required documentary discovery, expert valuation evidence, and consideration of equitable claims not suitable for Small Claims Court procedures.

Applying principles from prior authority, the court found that transfer would promote the just, most expeditious, and least expensive determination of the dispute and avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The matter was ordered transferred to the Superior Court of Justice.