Double check Please.

Dear previous writer:

What you put down for the Pilon case as I think in that case, the small claims decision was upheld but I think the last line of that section says that it should remain with the family court.

Please make your corrections on this.

Pilon v. Lavine, 2016 Case Brief

Full Title: Pilon v. Lavine, 2016 ONSC 1965 (Div. Ct.)

Court: Division Courts.

Procedural History

The case involved a $12,000 debt following a divorce between Lavine and Pilon. According to the plaintiff, before their separation Lavine had offered the loan to Pilon and wanted the settlement of the loan to be part of the separation agreement. The loan payment therefore had to do with the settlement of the outstanding properties and debts and thus applied much to either the small claims debts or property litigations or in the higher courts levels of hearing the case. While the claimant maintains that she wants to hear the case in the small claims court, the defendant is pleading to keep the case in the family court. The judgment of the case should therefore depend on whether the court will find that the transaction was within the contexts of family law relations and not in the claims court or the other way around.

Issue

The main issue was whether the small claims court was the appropriate place for hearing the case. Essentially, the decision would highly depend on the nature of the claim and the nature of the transaction or agreement between the parties during the exchange.

Holding

The main points of contention have to do with the fact that if the case is to be heard in the family law relationship, then it means that the defendant is absolved of the debts and will only pay half of the amount since they are supposed to share the credit under the regulation. On the other hand, if the case is to be heard under the simple claims courts, it means that there was a business transaction and the defendant will be liable under the informal contract in the exchange to make a refund of the money. The hearing will therefore involve defining the nature of the exchange during the time of the exchange and determining whether the nature of the transaction would lead to a binding contract. Contexts that would leave the defendant free with no further arguing of the case include instances, where, for example, the plaintiff may have given the amount as a gift or a similar case.

Rules

The loan agreement and the nature of the transaction will determine how the defendant should pay back and the amounts that he should pay

The court will determine the existence of the loan agreement and the boundaries of the payment schedules and nature of the payment transactions

Reasoning

The main reasoning in the case has to do with the Uniform Marital Property Act that emerged in 1983 to define the way that the family should handle property and wealth during divorce and separation. Accordingly, the case suggests that there was a pending debt during the relationship that had to be arbitrated at the time of the separation. The court is to make a decision whether or not the debt qualifies in the case considering that

the couple is separated and each individual is leading their own lives. The legal notion is that if the debt belonged to an asset that the couple shared then it would be judged under the family law relationship and both the defendant and Lavine will have to repay the debt.

Facts

Lavine and Pilon are separating from a marital relationship and have to mitigate the separation of properties and debts among the couple

According to the financial history, Pilon owed Lavine a sum of $24,000 of which Pilon payed half the amount as per the payment schedules of the loan agreement

At the end of the relationship, Pilon still owed the plaintiff $12,000 which Lavine requested to be settled as a small claims settlement.

The court found that the loan, which was evidenced by the agreement and payment schedule still fell under the family law relationship and would be heard as such since they were contingent to the contexts of marriage between the two.

Pilon v. Lavigne, 2016 ONSC 1965 (Div. Ct.)