Andrew L. Keesmaat

The applicants sought approval of a settlement agreement regarding the validity and distribution of the deceased's estate.

The parties agreed that the 2017 will was valid but proposed a distribution that deviated from its terms.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer filed a rejection of settlement on behalf of a minor grandchild who had a potential interest under an earlier will.

The court approved the settlement despite the rejection, finding that Rule 75.07.1 does not grant a non-party absolute veto power over settlement approval, but rather requires the court to consider the non-party's rights when assessing whether the settlement is fair and reasonable.

This appeal concerned a dispute between cousins over their aunt's will, specifically regarding the Testatrix's testamentary capacity when she executed a 2007 will.

The appellant argued the application judge erred in finding capacity without sufficient evidence and challenged the costs award.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in the assessment of evidence regarding testamentary capacity.

The court affirmed the application judge's discretion to discount expert evidence based on a biased factual summary and found ample evidence to support the Testatrix's capacity.

The appeal on costs was also dismissed, as the appellant failed to demonstrate an error in principle or that the award was plainly wrong, noting that the absence of dockets is not an automatic bar to cost recovery.

The defendant driver brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's personal injury claim and the co-defendant municipality's crossclaim arising from a motor vehicle collision.

The plaintiff, who had a stop sign, entered the intersection and was struck by the defendant, who had the right of way.

The court found the plaintiff's expert report unreliable because it assumed the plaintiff stopped 14 meters back from the intersection, which was contrary to evidence and common sense.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the defendant had no reasonable opportunity to avoid the collision, and granted the motion.

The plaintiffs, Steven and Carolyn Nadeau, brought an action for damages after Steven Nadeau was injured by an automatic garage door.

They sued the building owner (Ontario), property manager (CBRE), door installer (Wilcox), garage manager (SP Plus), and maintenance contractor (Haws).

Wilcox, SP Plus, and Haws each brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the action against them.

The court granted Wilcox's motion, finding no duty of care owed to the plaintiffs and no basis for cross-claims, deeming it a rare case suitable for partial summary judgment.

The motions brought by SP Plus and Haws were dismissed, as genuine issues requiring a trial remained regarding their respective duties of care and, for SP Plus, ambiguities in contractual indemnification clauses.

A neighbour who provided assistance to an elderly woman for nearly 15 years sought to enforce a $100,000 cheque given to him by the woman shortly before her death.

The woman had also made a bequest of $100,000 to the neighbour in her will.

The cheque was returned by the bank due to insufficient funds in the account, and the woman died before the shortfall could be remedied.

The court held that a gift by cheque is not complete until the cheque is cashed or has cleared.

Since the woman lacked sufficient funds in her account and died before the cheque could be presented for payment, the gift failed for lack of delivery.

The court also rejected arguments based on the Bills of Exchange Act, estoppel by convention, and equitable principles.

The applicant sought to enforce payment of a $100,000 cheque received as an inter vivos gift from the deceased shortly before her death.

The deceased mistakenly believed she had sufficient funds to cover the cheque, which subsequently could not be cashed due to a shortfall in her account.

The court dismissed the application, holding that a gift by cheque is not complete until it clears, and a sufficient act of delivery did not occur as the donor lacked the funds.

The equitable doctrine of estoppel by convention was also found inapplicable as the applicant did not change his legal position in reliance on the shared mistaken assumption.