Below are the summaries for this past week's civil decisions. There was a distinctly family law theme this week.
In a 100-page decision in Moore v Sweet, the Court of Appeal set aside a motion judge's decision granting the proceeds of an insurance policy to an ex-wife who had been paying the policy premiums, and granted the proceeds to the deceased's common law wife, whom the deceased had designated as irrevocable beneficiary. This result followed even though the deceased had agreed to maintain the ex-wife as beneficiary in exchange for her agreement to pay the premiums, and the change in beneficiary designation to the common law wife was a breach of that agreement. The focus of the discussion in decision is whether a constructive trust can be imposed only on two bases: unjust enrichment and wrongful acts, or whether there are other grounds to award a constructive trust (where it would be in "good conscience" and other grounds). Justice Lauwers dissented. I suspect we may not have heard the last of this case.
In PP v DD, the father of a child sued the mother for fraudulent misrepresentation, "involuntary parenthood" and sexual battery, alleging that if she had not told him she was taking birth control pills, he would not have consented to sexual relations with her and therefore would not have become a father. Tthe Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the motion judge to strike the statement of claim, without leave to amend, as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.
In Reiter v. Hollub, the court discussed Kerr v Baranow, the constructive trust remedy, and the concept of a "joint family venture" in upholding the lower court decision denying the applicant's claim to a constructive trust.
There was also an important decision on the law of costs in 1318847 Ontario Limited v. Laval Tool & Mould Ltd. in which the court clarified the tests to be considered in granting costs against non-parties.
In addition to several other family law decisions, other topics covered included several procedural decisions – jurisdiction in the labour law context, reasonable apprehension of bias, sufficiency of reasons, setting aside orders, extensions of time to appeal and stays pending appeal.
To view the article in full click here
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
