Law Times

Law timeS • September 7, 2010 CaseLawLaw ONTARIO CIVIL CASES Conflict Of Laws JURISDICTION Action was effectively barred by law of Quebec Motion for summary judgment dismissing action on ground there was no genuine issue for trial. Plaintiff was passenger in motor vehicle owned by defen- dant R. and operated by defen- dant C.. Plaintiff was injured in single vehicle collision which occurred in Province of Quebec. Action was commenced in On- tario, parties were all resident of Ontario, vehicle was regis- tered, licensed and insured in Ontario. Defendants contend- ed that law of Quebec applied to action and pursuant to that law there was no right to sue for damages sustained in mo- tor accident occurring in that province as Automobile Insur- ance Act (Que.), provided that victims of bodily injury caused by automobile in Quebec were to be compensated by Quebec no-fault insurance scheme. Mo- tion granted. Action was eff ec- tively barred by law of Quebec and even though parties resided in Ontario they were not able to sue in tort. Th ey instead had access to no-fault accident ben- efi ts from their own insurer on scale provided by regie under Quebec legislation. As it was apparent that on current state of law action could not succeed and there was no genuine issue of law requiring trial, action was dismissed. Demers v. Cousineau (June 8, 2010, Ont. S.C.J., Master Ma- cLeod, File No. 05-DV-33104) 189 A.C.W.S. (3d) 998 (4 pp.). MISTAKE Doctrine of non est factum did not apply where plaintiff careless in failing to read documents before signing In consideration for fee off ered by stranger plaintiff agreed to co-sign mortgage of someone who was unable to obtain fi - nancing because of bad credit. Plaintiff had second thoughts but went ahead after off er was increased. Plaintiff was assured of being liable as co-signor for six months only. Plaintiff signed but did not read documents to be submitted to defendant bank as mortgagee. Based on documents defendant approved loan and advanced funds. Title to property was taken jointly in names of purported borrower and plaintiff . No mortgage payments were made. Upon inquiry plaintiff discovered fraud. Fraudsters had vanished with funds. Mortgage went into default and defendant sold property. Defendant sought to recover shortfall from plaintiff . Plaintiff sued defendant for damages alleging that defendant was in position to detect fraud. Defendant brought motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff 's claims. Motion al- lowed. Plaintiff was bound by mortgage documents having affi xed signature thereon. Doc- trine of non est factum did not apply. Plaintiff was careless in failing to read documents be- fore signing. Plaintiff was in best position to avoid fraud but did nothing to protect self. Plaintiff had no claim in damages against defendant for failing to protect plaintiff from fraudsters. Rela- tionship between plaintiff and defendant was strictly that of debtor and creditor. Defendant PAGE 13 Subscribe to Law Times And receive: • Unlimited access to the Law Times digital editions and to our digital edition archives...FREE • Canadian Legal Newswire, a weekly e-newsletter from the editors of Law Times and Canadian Lawyer...FREE COURT DECISIONS earlug.indd 1 CaseLaw is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. CaseLaw is a weekly summary of notable unreported civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. Single or multiple copies of the full text of any case digested in this issue can be obtained by: Contracts 11/10/09 11:20:32 AM These cases may be found online in BestCase and other electronic resources from Canada Law Book. To subscribe, please call 1-800-565-6967. had no obligation to explain documents to plaintiff or verify that plaintiff understood trans- action being entered into. De- fendant was entitled to rely on documents signed by plaintiff . Claim dismissed. Isaacs v. Royal Bank of Canada (June 17, 2010, Ont. S.C.J., Molloy J., File No. 06-CV- 316836PD3) 189 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1005 (15 pp.). Family Law SUPPORT It would create undue hardship for father to pay table support Father severely undermined and destroyed his sons' relationship with their mother. Arbitrator who conducted arbitration for parties concluded this was case of irrational alienation from parent. Judge who had heard appeal from arbitration agreed. Evidence pointed overwhelm- ingly to change in custody. Mother had ability, strength and insight to parent appro- priately. She put younger son's interests fi rst, not her own. She was more likely to foster relationship between younger son and his father. Younger son had chance of developing healthy relationship with both his parents, only if he was in his mother's custody. Mother was granted custody of younger son. Workshop was younger son's only hope to fi nd way to see his mother in realistic and balanced fashion and to repair his relationship with her, so he could live productively with her. Father's counsel's proposal that sons participate in trial was rejected. Th ere was no benefi t in meeting with sons in course of trial, to contrary, there would only be negative eff ects in do- ing so. Mother had overpaid her child support obligations i) completing and mailing in the order form in this issue; or ii) calling CaseLaw's photocopy department at (905) 841-6472 in Toronto, (800) 263-3269 in Ontario and Quebec, or (800) 263-2037 in other provinces; or iii) faxing a copy of the completed order form to (905) 841-5085. by $19,500. She did not seek reimbursement form father for this amount, nor did she ask him to contribute to sons' s. 7 expenses, either retroactively or prospectively. Father's income was less than $10,000 per year. Father's standard of living was clearly lower than mother's and it would create undue hardship for him to pay table support at this time. Mother did not seek ongoing child support for younger son. Father had never paid child support in past and there was no reason to expect he would do so in future. Older son was over age of majority. Mother was more than willing to contribute to old son's sup- port. He would like to move out of his father's home, and live on his own. His mother would assist him fi nancially, but would prefer to make her arrangements directly with him. Older son's rejection of his mother would be suffi cient for court to make no child support order in his favour. His mother, however, wished to continue to support him. No specifi c order was made in relation to sup- port for older son, other than to say that he and his mother would make their arrangements directly, and she would provide him with funds directly. B. (S.G.) v. L. (S.J.) (June 30, 2010, Ont. S.C.J., Mesbur J., File No. FS-08-15602; FS-08- 15698) 189 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1056 (37 pp.). Judgments And Orders SATISFACTION Lien judgment was satisfied by individual defendant through documents executed by plaintiff releasing lien claim TC Corp. brought action seek- ing to enforce claim for lien against real property owned by N.L. and mortgaged with CT Co.. TC Corp.'s principal was brother of N.L.. Trial was adjourned to allow parties to discuss settlement. On consent of TC Corp. and N.L. judge made order dated December 4, 2007, granting judgment against N.L.. TC Corp. requi- sitioned writ of seizure and sale as against N.L.. Consent order dismissed action against CT Co.. By notice of appointment TC Corp. sought to settle con- ditions for sale of real property based on December 4th order. In resisting plaintiff 's right to sell property N.L. relied on three documents executed by brother on behalf of TC Corp.. First was written acknowledge- ment that documents relat- ing to property were created solely to guard N.L.'s interest as against certain bank and De- cember 4th order. Second was full and fi nal release relieving N.L. of all claims in action and authorizing withdrawal of writ of seizure and sale. Th ird was satisfaction piece in respect of December 4th order. TC Corp. questioned authenticity of documents asserting that signa- tures of principal were forged. Request to set terms of sale refused. Judgment set forth in December 4th order had been satisfi ed. On basis of written acknowledgment, release and satisfaction piece executed by principal, TC Corp. was not entitled to sell property having released all claims against N.L. in respect of December 4th order. TC Corp. failed to ad- duce evidence including expert testimony to demonstrate that signatures of principal were forged and documents were not authentic. Torgo Construction Corp. v. Lambrinos (June 17, 2010, Ont. S.C.J., Master Polika, Recruiting? Post your position on GREAT RATES. GREAT REACH. GREAT RESULTS. Contact Sandy Shutt at sandra.shutt@thomsonreuters.com for details. www.lawtimesnews.com JobsInLaw 1/4 pg 5X.pdf 1 2/15/11 4:18:54 PM Includes a FREE digital edition! Go to: www.lawtimesnews.com

• Cover
• Art Reflecting Life
• Stingy Remedies
• Focus On Class Actions