When faced with a similar problem in Feaver v. Curno, 2010 ONSC 4009, at paras. 206, 213 and 215, the court concluded that it could not give effect to a claim for a share in the increase in the value of a property in the absence of expert testimony even if the claimant’s evidence about having made financial contributions and renovations to the property at issue was accepted. Phivos similarly offers no expert or other evidence to support the contention that the maintenance, repairs, renovations, upgrades and improvements that Phivos made directly increased the value of 39 Chipper: see Gonsalves v. Scrymgeour, 2016 ONSC 6659, at paras. 203-205, 210, and 240; Reiter v. Hollub, 2015 ONSC 6397, at paras. 23-25.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.