Alexander N. Procope

The applicant sought an order striking the respondent's Notice of Appearance in consolidated estate proceedings involving two estates.

The respondent, who was named as estate trustee in both wills, had persistently failed to comply with multiple court orders requiring disclosure, accounting, mediation attendance, and cooperation with an Estate Trustee During Litigation.

The court found clear and deliberate breaches of numerous interlocutory orders, including peremptory orders, coupled with conduct that demonstrated the futility of granting further opportunities to comply.

The respondent's defences were repetitive, unsworn, and uncorroborated.

The court struck the Notice of Appearance and ordered the applications to proceed as unopposed, finding that the respondent's conduct had caused extraordinary expense and delay in administering a modest estate.

The respondent, Wayne Gardner, was the estate trustee of the Estate of Tracy Gardner.

The estate was valued at approximately $583,407.53 and the three minor grandchildren were entitled to equal shares.

Following a finding of contempt of court for failing to comply with an Order to Pass Accounts dated January 7, 2022, the respondent appeared for sentencing.

The respondent admitted to misappropriating estate funds, using proceeds from the sale of two condominiums to purchase a house in Barrie that was subsequently transferred to his then-wife during separation.

The respondent claimed the remaining funds were spent on the house, repairs, furniture, tools, and trips.

At sentencing, the court imposed a six-day term of imprisonment to be served in two-day blocks on alternate weekends, ordered the respondent to pay $583,407.53 into court in instalments of $3,000 every six months, and ordered costs of $14,000.

The appellants challenged the validity of their deceased father's 2021 will and an inter vivos property transfer, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by the respondents.

The application judge dismissed their motion for directions, finding they failed to meet the minimal evidentiary threshold under Rule 75.06.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the application judge's assessment of the evidence regarding capacity or undue influence, nor in his treatment of the evidence or sufficiency of reasons for dismissing the challenge to the property transfer.

The appellant sought to set aside a motion judge's order dismissing her Notice of Objection to a Will and an order for interest on legacies.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's factual findings and upholding the summary determination of the estate matter under Rule 75.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court also denied leave to appeal the costs order, affirming the discretionary nature of interest and costs awards.

The applicant sought orders requiring the respondents, Srul Erlich and Tamara Erlich, to undergo capacity assessments and to prevent them from dissipating trust property or their cottage.

The court dismissed the application, finding no reasonable grounds to believe that either Srul or Tamara were incapable or that assessments were required, giving weight to existing medical opinions and the respondents' wishes.

A motion was brought under s. 19 of the Health Care Consent Act, 1996 seeking authorization to administer antipsychotic and mood stabilizing medication to an involuntary psychiatric patient pending the disposition of an appeal from a Consent and Capacity Board decision.

The court accepted evidence that the patient was incapable of consenting to treatment and that several statutory criteria under s. 19(2) were satisfied.

However, the court was not persuaded that the patient's condition required immediate treatment before the appeal could be heard and determined, which was scheduled within several weeks.

Because the urgency requirement under s. 19(2)(d) was not met, the requested interim treatment authorization was refused.