Farmer v. Farmer
| Jurisdiction | Ontario |
| Judge | JUSTICE ALEX FINLAYSON |
| Neutral Citation | 2021 ONSC 5913 |
| Citation | 2021 ONSC 5913 |
| Docket Number | FC-15-2157-0001 |
| Court | Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada) |
| Date | 03 September 2021 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
4 practice notes
-
CVV V CWB: The Nature Of Set-Aside Applications And Adequacy Of The Tribunal's Reasons
...Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 17, s 45. 21 See, for example, Wang v. Takhar, 2019 ONSC 5535 at paras 46-47 at 56-60. See also Farmer v. Farmer, 2021 ONSC 5913, where the Court relied upon s. 38(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991 - which stipulates that "an award... shall state the reasons on which it ......
-
Najm v Najm,
...86-87, aff'd 2014 ONCA 827 (except for variation of s. 7 expense calculation). 24 Devayne v. Noble, 35 E.R. 781, (1816) 1 Mer. 572. 25 2021 ONSC 5913, at paras 71-73. The analysis by Finlayson J. of the various approaches to tracing set out in paras 67-84 of the report is comprehensive as i......
-
Alievski v Alievski,
...“first in, first out rule”, the “pro rata approach” and the “common sense method”: see Najm v. Najm, 2024 ONSC 2053; Farmer v. Farmer, 2021 ONSC 5913. The “first in, first out rule” has gradually been rejected in favour of the other two methods: see Najm; Goodyer v. Goodyer, (1999) 168 D.L.......
-
Remington Georgetown Inc. v Tarion Warranty Corporation,
...has “seized the substance of the matter”. The degree of detail in any particular case may vary with the circumstances”: Farmer v. Farmer, 2021 ONSC 5913, at para. 38 In fact, the adequacy or inadequacy of reasons is not generally a sufficient ground for quashing an otherwise valid decision.......
3 cases
-
Najm v Najm
...86-87, aff'd 2014 ONCA 827 (except for variation of s. 7 expense calculation). 24 Devayne v. Noble, 35 E.R. 781, (1816) 1 Mer. 572. 25 2021 ONSC 5913, at paras 71-73. The analysis by Finlayson J. of the various approaches to tracing set out in paras 67-84 of the report is comprehensive as i......
-
Alievski v Alievski
...“first in, first out rule”, the “pro rata approach” and the “common sense method”: see Najm v. Najm, 2024 ONSC 2053; Farmer v. Farmer, 2021 ONSC 5913. The “first in, first out rule” has gradually been rejected in favour of the other two methods: see Najm; Goodyer v. Goodyer, (1999) 168 D.L.......
-
Remington Georgetown Inc. v Tarion Warranty Corporation
...has “seized the substance of the matter”. The degree of detail in any particular case may vary with the circumstances”: Farmer v. Farmer, 2021 ONSC 5913, at para. 38 In fact, the adequacy or inadequacy of reasons is not generally a sufficient ground for quashing an otherwise valid decision.......
1 firm's commentaries
-
CVV V CWB: The Nature Of Set-Aside Applications And Adequacy Of The Tribunal's Reasons
...Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 17, s 45. 21 See, for example, Wang v. Takhar, 2019 ONSC 5535 at paras 46-47 at 56-60. See also Farmer v. Farmer, 2021 ONSC 5913, where the Court relied upon s. 38(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991 - which stipulates that "an award... shall state the reasons on which it ......