Andrew Donald MacKillop Felker

This appeal concerns the applicable limitation period for an equitable trust claim against a deceased's estate.

The respondent, a common-law spouse, brought a claim for constructive trust and unjust enrichment against the estate more than four years after the deceased's death.

The motion judge applied a ten-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act (RPLA).

The Court of Appeal, applying a holistic statutory interpretation approach, determined that the two-year limitation period under section 38(3) of the Trustee Act applies to equitable trust claims against estates, as "wrong" in section 38(2) encompasses unjust enrichment.

The Court found that the longer RPLA period does not apply to general estate claims, emphasizing the legislative policy for expeditious estate administration.

Consequently, the respondent's equitable trust claim was statute-barred and dismissed.

The applicant sought an order validating an undated, unwitnessed fill-in-the-blanks document as the deceased's last will and testament under section 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The respondent brother opposed, arguing the document was merely a draft and that his subsequent reconciliation with the deceased vitiated her intention to exclude him.

The court found the document represented the deceased's fixed and final testamentary intentions at the time it was made, and that a subsequent change in circumstances does not revoke a will.

The application was granted and the document was validated.

The Applicant, represented by the Public Guardian and Trustee, objected to the Respondent Estate Trustee being represented by a non-lawyer.

The non-lawyer sought leave to represent the Estate Trustee and the Estate Trustee personally.

The court held that under Rule 15.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a party acting in a representative capacity must be represented by a lawyer, and there is no discretion to grant leave for a non-lawyer to appear.

The court ordered the non-lawyer not to represent the respondents and required the Estate Trustee to retain counsel.

The appellants appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's findings of fact were open to him on the evidence and were fatal to the issues raised.

The court also held that the issue of interest was a question of contract and was properly pleaded.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000.