Adam Avi Hummel

The applicant daughter and the respondent father were engaged in a property dispute over a condominium in Milton.

The matter proceeded through triage court, cross-examinations, and a judicial pretrial conference within approximately twelve months of the notice of application being issued.

The parties reached a full and final settlement on the eve of the hearing, and the court issued a consent judgment in accordance with the draft provided.

The court commended the parties and counsel for their professionalism, expeditious conduct, and respect for judicial resources.

This costs decision in an estate litigation matter addresses the modern approach to costs in estate proceedings.

The court reviews the principles from Sawdon Estate v. Watch Tower and Salter v. Salter Estate, emphasizing that costs are generally to be paid by the unsuccessful party, with the estate indemnifying the estate trustee for any shortfall.

The court finds that both parties acted reasonably in litigating the issue of a holograph will, and orders that all parties' costs be paid out of the estate, balancing fairness, proportionality, and access to justice.

The applicant sought to validate a purported holograph will that bequeathed the deceased's home and contents to her, effectively disinheriting her other children, contrary to previous wills.

The court found suspicious circumstances, including the complete lack of evidence regarding the will's creation, the significant change from prior wills, and the deceased's declining cognitive function.

The applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving the deceased's testamentary capacity and knowledge and approval of the document.

The application was dismissed.

This decision concerns a voir dire on the admissibility of an expert report in an application to determine the validity of a holograph will.

The applicant sought to validate a 2016 holograph will, while the respondents argued the deceased lacked testamentary capacity, asserting a 2012 lawyer-prepared will was the only lawful one.

The respondents retained a geriatric psychiatrist, Dr. Hermann, to provide an opinion on the deceased's testamentary capacity and susceptibility to undue influence.

The applicant challenged the report's admissibility under the Mohan test, arguing it was not necessary and that Dr. Hermann was not qualified or impartial.

The court found the report necessary to understand complex medical concepts and that Dr. Hermann was qualified and impartial, ruling the expert report admissible.

The applicant sought an order under s. 9 of the Estates Act to compel the deceased's lawyer to produce her file to determine if an unexecuted draft will could be validated under s. 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The court considered whether this constituted an impermissible fishing expedition or breached solicitor-client privilege.

Given that the estate trustee did not oppose the relief and the primary beneficiary under the prior will consented, the court ordered the lawyer to produce the file relating to the deceased's 2022 estate planning.

The applicant sought directions under Rule 75.06(1) to access the files of his deceased mother's lawyer, Maria Simone, to investigate a potential challenge to her 2014 will under s. 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The applicant, a 10% beneficiary under the 2014 will, wished to review draft wills and notes to determine if a later testamentary intention existed, without formally challenging the 2014 will due to a disinheritance clause.

The court expressed reluctance to grant pre-action discovery, citing concerns about fishing expeditions, solicitor-client privilege, and the lack of a pleaded cause of action.

Despite the estate trustee's consent, the court declined to grant the order on an uncontested case conference, requiring the applicant to return with researched legal argument on the novel issues raised by s. 21.1 and the application of s. 9 of the Estates Act.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division dismissing his appeal of a removal order issued for misrepresentation regarding his marriages.

The IAD found the removal order valid and concluded that the humanitarian and compassionate factors, including the best interests of his children and establishment in Canada, did not outweigh his serious misrepresentations and lack of remorse.

The Federal Court held the IAD's assessment of hardship and the best interests of the children was reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.