William A. Sangster

The plaintiff, an elderly widow, sought to set aside two property transfers that gave her son, the defendant, an interest in her home property.

The plaintiff alleged she did not understand the nature of the documents she signed and was subject to undue influence.

The defendant counterclaimed for an interest in the property based on unjust enrichment and proprietary estoppel, citing his contributions to expanding a workshop on the property.

The court found the transfers void due to non est factum, mistake, and undue influence, restoring the plaintiff as sole owner.

The defendant's counterclaim was dismissed because he did not come to the court with clean hands, having engaged in unconscionable conduct by secretly transferring the property and refusing to return it.

The moving party sought to set aside a temporary spousal support order made in his absence, claiming he was out of the country when served.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to satisfactorily explain his delay in bringing the motion to set aside the order after returning to Canada.

The court ordered the matter to proceed to a settlement conference.

Following dismissal of a summary judgment motion that sought to bar an unjust enrichment claim on limitation grounds, the applicant requested costs based on her success.

The court held that although the motion had been dismissed, the outcome resulted partly from the applicant’s own failure to amend her pleadings to properly include the unjust enrichment claim after obtaining leave to do so.

The respondent had also failed to plead the limitation issue, contributing to the motion’s failure.

In the circumstances, the court determined that awarding costs to the applicant would improperly reward her pleading deficiency.

The request for costs was therefore dismissed and no costs were awarded to either party.