Alexander Turner

The appellant sought to prove the validity of a holograph codicil executed by the deceased testatrix, purportedly leaving the most valuable estate asset, a home farm worth approximately $20 million, to the appellant alone.

The trial judge found suspicious circumstances relating to both the testatrix's knowledge and approval of the codicil's contents and her testamentary capacity, and concluded the appellant failed to discharge her burden on either issue.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of suspicious circumstances, no misapplication of the legal standard for knowledge and approval, and no improper reliance on the family doctor's clinical notes.

The court also found the reasons for decision were sufficient for meaningful appellate review.

Costs of $100,000 were awarded to the respondents.

The applicant and respondent were common-law partners for approximately 13 years who separated in June 2015.

Shortly after separation, the respondent sold the assets of his patient transfer business for over $5,000,000.

The applicant sought spousal support and a share of the sale proceeds.

The proprietary claims were resolved on consent for $1,220,000.

At trial, the court determined the applicant's continuing entitlement to spousal support on a primarily non-compensatory basis, finding the respondent's income ranged from $257,000 to $517,000 between 2020 and 2023.

The court rejected the applicant's claim that the respondent's conduct constituted a gross repudiation of the relationship under s. 33(10) of the Family Law Act.

Ongoing spousal support was fixed at $5,079 per month, with retroactive adjustments for 2020-2024, terminating June 30, 2027.

Following an eleven-day trial regarding the validity of a holograph codicil and the ownership of investment accounts, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought to have her costs paid from the estate, arguing she acted reasonably in seeking to administer the estate.

The court rejected this argument, finding she procured the invalid codicil in suspicious circumstances and for her sole benefit.

Applying the 'loser pays' principle, the court ordered the applicant to personally pay the respondents' costs, fixed at $2,217,768.69, taking into account the complexity of the proceeding and the respondents' offers to settle.

The applicants challenged the validity of a purported will dated September 10, 2020, allegedly made by Kenneth Ryan Hill, a wealthy status Indian and permanent resident of the Six Nations of the Grand River Reserve.

The will named the respondent, Mr. Hill's son, as executor and left his interest in Grand River Enterprises (worth approximately $38 million) to him, with bequests of $5 million to each of his other children (except two who received nothing or $3 million).

The applicants argued that Mr. Hill did not sign the will and did not know and approve of its contents.

The court found that the respondent failed to establish that Mr. Hill signed the purported will and that suspicious circumstances surrounded its execution.

The court also found that the respondent failed to prove that Mr. Hill knew and approved of the will's contents.

The purported will was declared invalid both under the Indian Act and at common law.

The respondent sought costs following the dismissal of the applicant's motion to set aside a purported settlement and the respondent's cross-motion for summary judgment to enforce the settlement.

The respondent claimed costs on a full recovery basis or alternatively on a partial indemnity basis up to May 15, 2025, and thereafter on a full indemnity basis, citing the applicant's bad faith conduct.

The court awarded costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis prior to May 16, 2025, and on a full indemnity basis thereafter, but reduced the amount to account for proportionality and excluded costs related to the respondent's cross-motion and attendance by a second counsel.

The final costs award was fixed at $19,000.

The respondent brought a motion to stay an application for dependent's support under the Succession Law Reform Act, arguing that the Ontario Superior Court lacks jurisdiction.

The applicants sought support from the estate of a deceased individual who was domiciled in Costa Rica at the time of death.

The court found that the deceased had established Costa Rica as his permanent domicile and that the presumptive connecting factors (existence of personal property and insurance trusts in Ontario) were insufficient to establish a real and substantial connection between the dispute and Ontario.

The application was permanently stayed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant moved to set aside a settlement agreement reached via an accepted offer to settle, arguing the respondent failed to carry out its terms by paying the settlement funds two days after the negotiated deadline.

The respondent cross-moved to enforce the settlement.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that time was not explicitly made of the essence in the offer to settle and the brief delay did not demonstrate an intention not to be bound by the contract.

The settlement remained binding and the matter was directed to proceed to trial solely on the remaining issue of support.

Grand River Enterprises Six Nations Ltd. (GRE) appealed an order from the Superior Court of Justice requiring it, as a non-party, to produce financial documents for the valuation of shares held by a deceased in estates litigation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motions judge's discretionary decision.

The court found the documents relevant to the estate's valuation and the validity of the deceased's will, and that it would be unfair to proceed to trial without them.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motions judge's application of the Rule 30.10 test, emphasizing deference to the lower court's discretion and the effectiveness of the established Confidentiality Protocol in addressing GRE's concerns about privacy and business interests.

This motion addressed three issues: the addition of parties to a trust dispute, the appropriate method of service for parties residing in Israel under the Hague Service Convention, and costs.

The court ordered the addition of the issue of Gershon Kaplan and Adina Gordon as party defendants, including the Children's Lawyer for minor/unascertained beneficiaries, finding their presence necessary for effective adjudication.

Regarding service abroad, the court held that Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention authorizes service of an originating process by postal channels, rejecting the argument that "send" does not include "serve" and clarifying that prior case law suggesting otherwise (e.g., Wilson v. Servier Canada Inc.) is no longer good law.

The court directed service on the added parties in Israel by a method authorized by Article 10, including registered mail.

No costs were awarded due to the plaintiff's non-opposition on the first issue and the novelty of the second issue.

In a will challenge and dependants' support proceeding, the moving parties sought production of financial records from Grand River Enterprises Six Nations Ltd. (GRE), a third-party corporation in which the deceased held a 12.5% interest, and leave to examine two non-parties regarding the deceased's will.

The court granted both motions, finding that the financial records were relevant to valuing the estate and assessing the testamentary sense of the will, and that the non-parties possessed relevant information not obtainable elsewhere.

The plaintiff was successful on a summary judgment motion brought by the defendant and sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The defendant argued that the parties should bear their own costs due to the plaintiff's conduct, or alternatively, that costs should be reduced.

The court rejected the defendant's arguments regarding the plaintiff's conduct and the use of Toronto counsel, but also declined to award substantial indemnity costs or penalize the defendant for refusing to mediate.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $39,325.00, after making a reduction for overlapping time among the plaintiff's legal team.

The plaintiff, a slip priority note holder, sued the defendant sailing club for breach of contract after the club unilaterally changed its summer dockage rates, eliminating a long-standing 20% rate differential for slip priority holders.

The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action, arguing no such agreement existed or was breached.

The court found a valid contract based on objective intent and conduct, including 40 years of consistent application of the 20% differential.

The court determined the club breached this agreement by unilaterally altering its terms and granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, ordering damages and specific performance of the original rate differential.

The moving party, a nephew of the deceased, brought a motion for directions to challenge the deceased's 2012 Will, which excluded him as a beneficiary.

He sought documentary discovery, including medical and financial records, alleging the deceased lacked testamentary capacity and was unduly influenced by the responding party.

The court found that the moving party had a financial interest in the estate and met the minimal evidentiary threshold required to call the validity of the will into question.

The motion was granted, and an order for the production of the solicitor's file, medical records, and financial records was issued.

The applicant, the common-law spouse of the deceased, brought a motion for interim support under the Succession Law Reform Act pending the final determination of her dependant's support application.

The deceased was a wealthy real estate developer who left his entire estate to his estranged wife and daughters.

The court rejected the applicant's budget of over $93,000 per month as unsubstantiated and overstated, instead awarding $30,000 per month in interim support.

The court dismissed the applicant's requests for interim legal fees, HST indemnification, and production of the deceased's estate planning files.

The court also granted the estate's cross-motion in part, imposing restrictions on the applicant's use of the estate-owned condominium, including a 15-person guest limit and a ban on posting interior photos on social media.

The applicant, Qi Xue, brought a motion seeking an order for financial disclosure from his stepdaughter, Yimeng Sun (Serena), in the context of a broader family law application for divorce, support, and property equalization against his spouse, Xiuping Sun, and Serena.

Serena opposed the disclosure, arguing that there was no evidence of parental care from Xue, the disclosure sought was disproportionate, and that support should be primarily sought from the spouse.

The court found that Xue had an arguable case for having provided care or support to Serena, thereby engaging Section 32 of the Family Law Act, and demonstrated a need for support.

Additionally, both Xue's property and support claims, and Serena's own property claim against Xue, triggered the financial disclosure requirements under Rule 13(1) of the Family Law Rules.

The court granted the motion, ordering Serena to provide the requested financial disclosure.

The defendant was charged with driving a motor vehicle on a highway while his driver's licence was suspended, contrary to section 53(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The trial proceeded in the defendant's absence.

The Crown proved the actus reus of the strict liability offence beyond a reasonable doubt: that the defendant was driving a motor vehicle on a highway while his licence was suspended for medical reasons.

The defendant failed to establish the due diligence defence on a balance of probabilities.

Although the defendant claimed to possess a doctor's letter permitting him to drive, he took no steps to verify his obligations regarding licence reinstatement and remained passively ignorant of the administrative requirements.

The court found the defendant guilty.

The applicant Trustee in Bankruptcy and Receiver sought approval of its reports and a declaration that a 2009 transfer of a half-interest in a residential property by the bankrupt to his spouse was a transfer at undervalue under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and a fraudulent conveyance under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

The court approved the Receiver's reports but dismissed the application regarding the property transfer.

The court held that the 'transfer' under s. 96 of the BIA occurred when the transfer documents were executed, not when they were registered, placing it outside the five-year lookback period.

Furthermore, the transfer was made for valid consideration as part of a matrimonial settlement, and there was no intent to defeat creditors.