Alexandra Mia Herzig Cuperfain

The applicant brought a statutory guardianship application regarding his mother, which was rendered moot when she died before adjudication.

The applicant sought costs of the application.

The court found that the application had conferred a benefit on the mother prior to her death by prompting the parties to implement care and personal support worker agreements.

The court awarded the applicant fixed costs of $12,000 payable from the mother's estate, significantly reducing the amount claimed as the costs incurred after her death were unreasonable.

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 court interprets the Will of Yaacov Glickman, deceased, and determines that the gift of the residue of his estate to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem is not void for uncertainty or any other reason.

The court finds that the Will provides for an outright gift to the University, not a formal trust or foundation, and that the "assumptions" in the Will are precatory rather than binding conditions.

The Applicant's concerns about ambiguity are addressed, and the court orders that the residue of the estate be distributed to the Hebrew University in accordance with the Will's guidelines.

The court considered whether shares in a co-operative housing corporation, registered to Anne and Jacob Glickman, were held jointly or as tenants in common.

The Estate of Yaacov Glickman sought a declaration that it was the sole beneficial and legal owner of the shares by right of survivorship.

The court found that the shares were held jointly, and upon Anne’s death, her interest passed to Jacob by survivorship.

The court rejected arguments to expand the definition of “land” in the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act to include co-op shares, holding that the Family Law Act presumption of joint tenancy applied.

In a family guardianship dispute concerning an elderly parent with dementia, the applicants sought a court-ordered capacity assessment, broad production of medical, financial, and solicitors’ records, and historic asset information, while the respondent son sought to vary an interim shared-care order.

Applying the factors governing s. 79 of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, the court found reasonable grounds to believe the parent may be incapable of managing property and personal care and ordered a current capacity assessment limited to those issues.

The court refused broad documentary production as disproportionate and invasive of privacy, but permitted limited disclosure of medical and financial records if requested by the designated assessor, through s. 3 counsel only.

The court also declined to require a further historic statement of assets and liabilities, finding the existing informal accounting sufficient.

The cross-motion was granted to terminate the failed shared-care regime and designate the respondent son as primary caregiver pending determination of the guardianship application.

The applicants, Ada De Novellis and Michael Ceci, brought a motion within a guardianship application concerning their 92-year-old mother, Dolorosa Ceci, who suffers from dementia.

They sought an accounting of proceeds from a charge registered by the respondent, Dario Ceci, against Dolorosa's property, an order for Dario to reimburse Dolorosa for legal fees paid from her assets, and an interim injunction restraining Dario from dealing with Dolorosa's assets.

The court dismissed the motion for an accounting, finding Dario had provided sufficient explanation.

It also dismissed the request for reimbursement of legal fees, instead ordering a charge on Dario's home as security.

Finally, the court dismissed the injunction request, finding no irreparable harm as Dolorosa had sufficient security.