Wendy Greenspoon-Soer

The applicant purchaser sought a declaration that a mortgage registered on the property by the vendor's brother shortly before closing was void.

The vendor claimed the mortgage formalized a pre-existing equitable mortgage for past loans.

The court found no credible evidence of an equitable mortgage and concluded the mortgage was registered with the intent to defeat, hinder, or delay creditors, including the purchaser.

The court applied the badges of fraud and declared the mortgage void under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act, ordering its discharge.

The parties, who own neighbouring lands, have a long history of disputes regarding their development.

The plaintiffs previously obtained an interlocutory injunction restricting the defendants from developing certain lots, which was later overturned.

The defendants sought damages resulting from the injunction, including interest rate differentials and carrying costs.

The plaintiffs brought a summary judgment motion seeking reimbursement for road construction costs and interest on letters of credit.

The court awarded the defendants damages for interest rate differentials and amendment fees caused by the injunction, but denied carrying costs for general delays.

On the summary judgment motion, the court ordered the defendants to pay their share of the asphalt and curb costs as agreed in a prior consent order, but rejected the plaintiffs' claims for additional municipal standard upgrades.

Following a series of motions and applications in a complex family estate and joint venture dispute, the court determined the appropriate costs awards.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to Mattamy Homes for an abandoned summary judgment motion and a successfully defended summary judgment motion.

The litigation guardian was also awarded partial indemnity costs.

However, the joint attorneys for property were awarded substantial indemnity costs of $180,000 against the Bistricers, as the court found the Bistricers' conduct in the litigation to be reprehensible, duplicitous, and driven by ulterior motives.

The applicants and respondent are brothers involved in a dispute over their late father's estate.

The applicants, acting as estate trustees, and the respondent both brought motions for directions regarding various issues, including the validity of a codicil, alleged undue influence, accounting of personal property, and distribution of sale proceeds.

The court ordered that the disputed issues be litigated as an action, with the respondent as plaintiff and the applicants as defendants.

The court also ordered the parties to attend mediation prior to trial, with the costs of the mediator to be borne by the estate.

In the context of an ongoing case-managed dispute, the defendant obtained draft documents that appeared to originate from a sealed matrimonial proceeding involving one of the plaintiffs.

The defendant sought to schedule a motion to lift the sealing order to use the financial information contained in the documents.

The court declined to schedule a motion to lift the sealing order, noting that a sealing order merely prevents public access to the court file and does not govern the use of documents obtained outside the file.

Instead, the court directed the defendant to bring a motion under Rule 34.15 regarding refusals to answer questions if he intended to use the documents during oral discovery.

The applicants challenged the validity of a will and an acknowledgment of trust purportedly executed by the deceased, alleging the signatures were forged.

The respondents, the deceased's parents and brothers, sought to uphold the documents and argued the applicant wife was separated from the deceased and not a dependant spouse.

Relying on expert handwriting evidence, the court found the will and trust documents were forged and therefore invalid.

The court also found that the applicant wife and the deceased were in a spousal relationship at the time of his death, entitling her to be appointed Estate Trustee Without a Will and declaring her and her children dependants of the estate.

Two related condominium applications were heard together concerning unpaid common expenses for parking units associated with a residential condominium unit.

The owner relied on an error in the condominium corporation’s status certificate that failed to include common expense amounts for two parking spaces and argued it was bound by the certificate under s. 76 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The corporation sought enforcement under s. 134 of the Act and confirmation of a condominium lien for unpaid common expenses.

The court held that while the status certificate bound the corporation for the fiscal year in which it was issued, it did not relieve the owner from ongoing obligations to contribute to common expenses thereafter.

The lien was confirmed but reduced due to the corporation’s initial error, with limited costs awarded.

Two related condominium applications were heard together concerning unpaid common expenses for parking units associated with a residential condominium unit.

The owner relied on an error in the condominium corporation’s status certificate that failed to include common expense amounts for two parking spaces and argued it was bound by the certificate under s. 76 of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The corporation sought enforcement under s. 134 of the Act and confirmation of a condominium lien for unpaid common expenses.

The court held that while the status certificate bound the corporation for the fiscal year in which it was issued, it did not relieve the owner from ongoing obligations to contribute to common expenses thereafter.

The lien was confirmed but reduced due to the corporation’s initial error, with limited costs awarded.