Victor Li

The applicant sought a declaration under s. 31 of the Marriage Act that her 2005 religious marriage to the deceased was valid, despite the marriage licence never being registered.

The deceased and the applicant lived together as husband and wife for 18 years before the deceased, struggling with severe addiction, purportedly married the respondent in a civil ceremony in 2023.

The court found that the 2005 marriage was solemnized in good faith, the parties intended to comply with the Act, neither was disqualified, and they cohabited as a married couple.

The application was granted, the 2005 marriage was deemed valid, and the 2023 marriage to the respondent was declared void ab initio and annulled.

The applicant, Hugh Kuang, sought an order for $4,110,000.00 in interim legal costs and disbursements to fund an upcoming trial under the Ontario Business Corporations Act and the Family Law Rules.

The respondents resisted, arguing that a prior consent order providing $1,000,000.00 did not establish the applicant's ongoing entitlement to interim funding.

The court determined that the prior consent order resolved the issue of entitlement, leaving only the questions of compliance and quantum.

Finding the applicant's proposed budget excessive but recognizing the complexity of the litigation, the court granted the motion in part and ordered the corporate respondents to pay $2,725,000.00 in four staged payments.

The applicant, Lin Zhang, brought a motion for leave to amend her Application in an estate matter.

The proposed amendments included seeking the removal of Shu De Rong as Estate Trustee and her own appointment, an election for equalization of net family property under the Family Law Act (FLA), dependent's relief under the Succession Law Reform Act (SLRA), and an accounting, preservation, and restitution related to foreign estate assets.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the requests for executor removal and foreign asset claims suffered from presumed prejudice due to lengthy delays and lacked prima facie merit or sufficient evidentiary basis.

The court also dismissed the application to extend the FLA limitation period, noting no apparent grounds for relief or good faith delay, and found the dependent's relief amendment unnecessary as it was already an alternative claim.