Amanda Bettencourt

The applicant sought to remove his brother as co-Estate Trustee of their late father's estate and sought directions on the apportionment of the estate.

The respondent brought a cross-application seeking compensation for personal care services, interest, and other payments.

The court found the respondent to be in an irreconcilable conflict of interest due to his unauthorized use of estate funds, failure to comply with a prior settlement agreement, and procedurally flawed claims against the estate.

The court removed the respondent as an Estate Trustee, dismissed his cross-application, and directed that specific amounts be deducted from his share of the estate to reimburse the applicant.

The defendant estate trustee brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss specific allegations of breach of a settlement agreement, arguing they were statute-barred and estopped.

The plaintiffs, beneficiaries of the estate, alleged breach of fiduciary duty, self-dealing, and fraudulent concealment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the issues were deeply intertwined with the broader claims, involved significant credibility disputes, and were not appropriate for partial summary judgment as they could lead to inconsistent findings at trial.

Legal Aid Ontario brought a motion to re-open the evidence and vary a costs decision that held it liable for 50% of the full indemnity costs awarded against the respondent.

LAO sought to introduce evidence refuting the court's presumptions that it had received an expert report and notice of a Public Guardian and Trustee certificate earlier than it claimed.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the presumptions did not constitute a 'mistake' under Rule 25(19)(b) of the Family Law Rules, that LAO had ample opportunity to address these issues prior to the costs decision, and that the proposed evidence would not have changed the result.

The applicant suffered a catastrophic brain injury resulting in severe cognitive impairments.

Shortly after his release from the hospital, the respondent, his former partner, secretly married him.

The applicant's sons, acting as his guardians, sought to annul the marriage, enforce a prior property settlement agreement, and obtain a non-communication order.

The court found that the applicant lacked the requisite mental capacity to understand the nature and responsibilities of marriage, declaring the marriage void ab initio.

The court also enforced the property settlement agreement, vesting sole title of the shared home in the applicant, and granted a permanent non-communication order against the respondent.