Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal over $500,000 used to buy a home, holding the appellants could not shift positions on appeal after arguing at trial that Avtar Johal’s intention controlled.
The court found the Modulux was not a gift but a loan, and awarded judgment to the plaintiff for $167,120.04 plus interest and prejudgment interest.
The court found the $500,000 transfer to be a gift, not an investment or loan, and dismissed the plaintiffs’ resulting trust and unjust enrichment claims.
The written Licence Agreement and attached demand mortgage, negotiated with counsel and unambiguous in form and terms, established a loan secured by a demand mortgage of $165,000 (not a gift), constituted a valid licence (not a lease), and precluded discounting the principal because the Agreement waived interest while the licensee occupied the granny suite; therefore the demand mortgage is enforceable and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
La Cour accorde à la demanderesse un ordre de cession sur un bien immobilier, concluant à une fiducie résultoire et rejetant la thèse du don.
Court found elements of unjust enrichment satisfied: Eleanor conferred quantifiable benefits and suffered corresponding deprivation, and there was no juristic reason (no valid gift) for the respondents to retain the benefit; the gift letter was forged and given no weight; accordingly Eleanor was entitled to be repaid a specified sum ($171,905.95) before any division of equity, the home to be listed for sale and remaining equity to be divided with debts deducted; custody issues were resolved by granting joint custody with a specific shared parenting schedule and child support ordered, while sp…
Source excerpt
The court found the plaintiff’s $65,000 contribution was an investment, not a gift or loan, and declared a 45% beneficial interest in the property.
The court held that $25,000 advanced by the plaintiffs to the defendant was a wedding gift, not a loan, and dismissed the action.
The court found payments made during an intimate relationship were gifts, not loans, dismissed the plaintiff’s claim, and ordered the CPL discharged.
The court dismissed a Rule 18A summary judgment application over a disputed $160,000 advance, finding genuine issues about whether it was a loan or a gift and whether the promissory note was authentic.
Explore more
