Purchase This Domain

Family — Equalization of property — Joint family venture (JFV) — Parties disputed whether their property division should be governed by JFV principles or standard equalization under the Family Law Act — Did the trial judge err in disregarding the parties’ concession of a JFV? — Equalization mechanisms under the Family Law Act deemed sufficient to adjudicate the dispute without JFV analysisIndigenous peoples — Property valuation — On-reserve property — Valuation of assets located on-reserve, including discounts for lack of marketability and the “reserve factor” — Did the trial judge err in applying discounts and using fair market value? — Trial judge’s reliance on expert evidence accounting for unique features of on-reserve property upheldFamily — Spousal support — Compensatory spousal support — Trial judge declined to award spousal support, finding neither party seriously pursued the issue at trial — Did the trial judge err in declining to award compensatory spousal support? — No basis to interfere with trial judge’s conclusion that spousal support was unwarranted

Municipalities — Zoning by-laws — Legal non-conforming use — Municipality sought injunction to restrain property uses allegedly contravening zoning by-laws — Application judge found uses not permitted under current by-law or saved under prior by-law — Did the application judge err in applying the test for legal non-conforming use? — Test from Saint Romuald (City) v. Olivier applied — Fact-driven analysis upheld on appealProperty — Zoning — Legal non-conforming use — Business operating on property for over 36 years — Application judge found uses too remote from prior lawful activities — Did the application judge err in determining legal non-conforming use? — Test for acquired rights under zoning by-laws correctly appliedEvidence — Expert opinion — Zoning by-laws — Application judge gave no weight to expert opinions on lawful use — Did the application judge err in disregarding expert evidence? — Court may reject expert evidence if unnecessary for fact-finding — No error in rejecting opinions inconsistent with documentary evidenceCivil procedure — Applications versus actions — Rule 38.10 — Appellants argued matter should have been converted to an action — Did the application judge err in failing to convert the application? — Issue raised for the first time on appeal — No prejudice demonstrated — Application procedure appropriateCivil procedure — Costs — Substantial indemnity costs — Application judge awarded costs without hearing submissions or providing reasons — Did the application judge err in awarding costs? — Leave to appeal costs required under s. 133(b) of the Courts of Justice Act — No error in awarding costs akin to partial indemnity

Property — Co-ownership — Partition Act — Sale of property — Motion judge ordered sale of property under the Partition Act and dispensed with appellants’ consent to the sale — Did the motion judge err in dispensing with the appellants’ consent to the sale? — Procedural fairness and evidentiary basis for dispensing with consent — Partition Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.4Business associations — Partnerships — Existence of partnership — Appellants claimed property was held as an asset of a partnership — Motion judge found property was held as tenancy in common — Did the motion judge err in dismissing the partnership claim? — Totality of circumstances test for partnership under Partnerships Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.5Civil procedure — Costs — Leave to appeal costs order — Appellants sought leave to appeal costs order, arguing it failed to account for divided success — Did the motion judge err in awarding costs? — Discretionary nature of costs awards and appellate review — Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194