Legal-Disclaimer

Monday - Friday: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm
Saturday, Sunday and Late Evening
Appointment Available
BY APPOINTMENT ONLY

(905) 503-1486

(647) 772-8187

toll-free 1(844) 642-7464

Menu

Uncategorized

Law Offices of Nizam Hashmi > Uncategorized

Contract- unjust enrichment- proprietary estoppel – Constructive trust

*TOMEK V. ZABUKOVEC 2020 ONSC 2930 Contracts — Formation — Husband and wife in divorce application seeking remedy regarding property acquired by husband’s father — Father acquiring property with the intention of severing and building houses for himself and for husband and wife — Development restriction allowing only one house to be built — Husband and wife building and living in house — Husband believing he would inherit property — Father dying intestate — Wife failing to establish oral agreement for transfer of property from father to husband and wife. Estoppel — Proprietary estoppel — Husband and wife in divorce application seeking...

Continue reading

Ontario Business Corporations Act, Oppression Remedy, Damage, Trial, Appeal, Costs

*Georgakakos v. Georgakakos 2020 ONSC 2256 The appellants were minority shareholders in a family holding company, AG, controlled by their father, the individual respondent. Initially, he owned 51 per cent of the shares of the company and held 40 per cent of the shares in trust for the appellants, with his wife holding the remaining nine per cent. After he and his wife divorced, the wife resigned as a director and transferred her shares to one of the respondent holding companies. AG owned shares in a company that operated a poultry processing operation. Another of the shareholders of that company decided...

Continue reading

#Real #Estate #Litigation: Breach of Agreement, Damage, Loss

*Pordell v. Crowther Estate 2020 ONSC 1635 The plaintiff agreed to purchase from the defendant a residential property with a closing date of June 22. The agreement contained a standard insurance clause providing that the risk remain with the seller until completion and that in the event of “substantial damage”, the buyer had the option of terminating the agreement or taking insurance proceeds and completing the purchase. The agreement allowed for four visits by the purchaser prior to closing. The plaintiff had exercised one visit before discovering a fire on April 27, by which time the property had been vacant for...

Continue reading

Rumsam v. Pakes – Limitation Period, Discoverability

*Rumsam v. Pakes 2019 ONCA 748 Limitations — Discoverability — Reasonable diligence — Plaintiff suing clinic and doctor who treated her for wrist injury for negligence in failing to advise her that follow-up x-ray was required — Plaintiff discovering by August 2013 at latest that x-ray report that recommended follow-up x-ray was reviewed by unidentified clinic doctor and not by defendant — Plaintiff moving to add that doctor as defendant in January 2017 — Motion judge erring in granting motion — Plaintiff not exercising reasonable diligence after discovering claim against unidentified doctor as she took no steps to determine doctor’s identity for...

Continue reading

Mulholland v. BMO Trust Co- Succession Law Reform Act, Equitable Remedy

*Mulholland v. BMO Trust Co.2019 ONSC 5785 Civil procedure — Costs — Full indemnity — Substantial indemnity — Estoppel — Proprietary estoppel — Elements — Representation element — Reliance element — Detriment element —  Trusts and trustees — Trustees — Duties — Trusts and trustees — Trustees — Liability — Wills and estates — Dependants’ relief — Entitlement —Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26. The respondent and her husband had nine children. In 1983, one of the children left school due to health problems and returned to live with his parents on a horse farm property his father had recently purchased....

Continue reading

Family Law: Spousal Support, Summary Judgment

*Birnie v. Birnie Estate] 2019 ONSC 2152 The applicant and B entered into a separation agreement in 2004 that required B to obtain a life insurance policy in the amount of $500,000 designating the applicant as the irrevocable beneficiary and to maintain that beneficiary designation for so long as he was required to pay spousal support to the applicant. B did not obtain the contemplated insurance. He died in 2017. The applicant brought an application for an order requiring B’s estate to pay her $500,000 and a motion for summary judgment. Held, the motion should be granted. The sole purpose of the life...

Continue reading

Civil Litigation: Contract, Trust, Property, Real Estate, Damage, Trial, Appeal

**Paulus et al. v. Fleury2018 ONCA1072 During a pre-trial conference in an action for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, counsel for the plaintiffs stated that he had “independent” witnesses to the collision who were “good people” and “solid good witnesses”. The defendant’s counsel agreed to settle theclaim. Defence counsel thendiscovered that the witnesses’ son lived across the street from the plaintiffs. He repudiated thesettlement. The plaintiffs brought a motion to enforce the settlement. Theyarguedthatwhentheircounseldescribedthewitnessesasindependent,hemeant that they could give evidence extrinsic to that of the plaintiffs, as they were in a separate car in a separate lane, and not that they did not know the plaintiffs. The motion judge rejected that interpretation. He found that the plaintiffs’ counsel’sstatementthatthewitnesseswere“independent”wasastatementoffact,not opinion, and that it was untrue. He concluded that the statement amounted to civil fraud and...

Continue reading

Family Law: Spousal Support, Property​ Division

Climans v. Latner 2019 ONSC 1311** The parties separated in 2015 after a 14-year relationship that was sexual in nature. During that relationship, they maintained separate Toronto residences. The applicant claimed that she kept her own house so that her children from a previous marriage could be close to their school. The respondent, who was extremely wealthy, paid all of the applicant’s expenses and provided her with spending money. They exchanged rings and held themselves out to others as a couple. After the separation, the applicant brought an application for spousal support. The respondent claimed that the applicant was his...

Continue reading

Aquilina v. Aquilina, Family & Divorce Law

Family & Divorce Law, equalization of net family property, intestate, election *Aquilina v. Aquilina, 2018 ONSC 3607 The applicant’s husband died intestate shortly after receiving a cancer diagnosis. The deceased’s complex international estate would not be an easy one to administer. As yet, the estate had no administrator. The applicant brought an application to extend the six-month deadline under s. 6 of the Family Law Act (“FLA”) for electing to receive an equalization payment under the FLA in lieu of her entitlement under the Succession Law Reform Act. Held, the application should be allowed. Any time prescribed by the FLA can be extended pursuant...

Continue reading

Commercial, Real Estate, Breach of Contract Litigation

*Romijay Enterprises Ltd. v. 11 Yorkville Partners Inc. 2017 ONSC 2388 The plaintiff R Ltd. owned one unit in an eight-unit condominium property. The wife of R Ltd.’s controlling mind B had renovated the unit for use by B’s law firm. After his wife died of cancer, B stopped practising law and transformed the unit into an alternative healing centre. The defendant Y Inc. owned five units in the property. It wished to cause the condominium corporation to sell the property to a non-arm’s-length purchaser, and relied upon s. 124(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998, which provides that a condominium corporation...

Continue reading
Translate »