Yana Fox

The applicants sought judicial review to quash a municipal by-law authorizing the sale of a surplus strip of land to an adjacent property owner, and moved to review a single judge's decision denying leave to obtain a certificate of pending litigation.

The Divisional Court declined to consider the merits of the judicial review application, finding the sale was a private transaction of limited public character, the applicants had delayed in pursuing their interest, and the transaction had already closed with a bona fide purchaser for value.

The court also dismissed the motion for a certificate of pending litigation, as the applicants could not establish a triable interest in the land.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' application for a writ of possession, the self-represented respondent sought costs of $15,000 for 150 hours of his time, plus disbursements, and $50,000 in damages.

The applicants argued costs should be deferred to a fresh proceeding they had commenced.

The court awarded the respondent $2,700 in costs, finding he was entitled to a moderate allowance for time spent performing work ordinarily done by a lawyer, but reduced his claimed hours to 25.

The claim for damages was dismissed as it was not properly before the court.

Estate trustees brought an application seeking leave to issue a writ of possession of a property forming part of the deceased’s estate, vacant possession, occupation rent, and damages against the surviving spouse who remained in the home.

The respondent asserted that the property was a matrimonial home and that he had a beneficial interest and possessory rights.

The court held that a writ of possession cannot issue without a prior order granting exclusive possession.

Because the parties were still spouses at the time of death and the property may constitute a matrimonial home, issues of title and possession must be determined under the Family Law Act before such remedies can be granted.

The court therefore dismissed the application, including the claims for occupation rent, damages, and vacant possession.

The Estate Trustee of a deceased shareholder sought oppression remedy relief and alleged breach of natural justice regarding the valuation of the deceased's 50% shareholding in a steel fabrication company.

The valuation was conducted by a professional valuator (Crowe) pursuant to a shareholders agreement.

The Estate Trustee challenged the valuation methodology, claiming the respondent director provided inaccurate and self-serving information regarding holdback amounts, related party expenses, and goodwill attribution.

The Estate Trustee also claimed it should have been involved in the valuation process.

The court dismissed the application, finding no oppression and holding that natural justice principles do not apply to expert determinations under commercial contracts.

This decision concerns the passing of accounts and compensation claims by Anne-Marie Alonzi, attorney and estate trustee for the late Ciriaco Forgione.

The court reviews the factual and legal context of the family dispute, the duties and compensation of attorneys and estate trustees, and the management of the estate’s properties.

The court finds that, despite record-keeping deficiencies and family conflict, Ms. Alonzi and her husband provided exceptional care to Mr. Forgione.

The court reduces compensation for failure to properly account for cash payments but upholds the majority of the claims, recognizing the challenging circumstances and the value of the services provided.

The applicants brought a motion for leave to obtain a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) regarding a strip of municipal land that the respondent City declared surplus and sold to the respondent purchaser.

The applicants had commenced an application for judicial review to quash the by-law authorizing the sale.

The applicants conceded they had no claim to an interest in the land but argued equity demanded the status quo be maintained.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that under s. 103 of the Courts of Justice Act, a reasonable claim to an interest in land is an indispensable threshold requirement for a CPL, and the court cannot expand the legislative intention to grant a CPL where no interest in land is claimed.