Andrew Sader

The court considered whether the Morris Guy Jones Family Trust was a sham, whether it was void for lack of certainty of subject-matter, and whether the respondent breached her duties as trustee.

The court found the trust was not a sham, was valid, and that the respondent breached the trust by transferring trust assets to a joint account.

The respondent was removed as trustee and the applicant was appointed in her place.

The respondent was ordered to account, restore trust assets, and disgorge any profits.

The applicants brought a motion to remove Tiffany Jean as Estate Trustee of the Estate of Warren Nelson Holbrook and for an interpretation of the Hotchpot Clause in Mr. Holbrook’s Will.

The court dismissed the motion to remove the Estate Trustee, finding that the applicants had not met the high threshold for removal, despite ongoing family friction and concerns about conflict of interest regarding a family business (Rejenmor).

The court provided directions for the future of Rejenmor, requiring its windup or sale within two years.

Regarding the Hotchpot Clause, the court adopted the Estate Trustee's interpretation, which treated lifetime advances to beneficiaries as gifts rather than loans requiring repayment, resulting in an unequal distribution where only one beneficiary would receive a residual share.

The applicant, Ulana Olha Gorgi, as sole Estate Trustee, sought to rectify the Last Will and Testament of John Ihnatowych to limit the beneficiaries of the residue and grandchildren clauses to his biological children, Ulana and Markian, and their children, thereby excluding Alexander Erik de Berner and his children, who claimed to be the deceased's biological issue and grandchildren.

The court found that the drafting solicitor failed to accurately reflect the testator's clear instructions, which consistently indicated an intent to benefit only Ulana and Markian and their children.

The application for rectification was granted, and the Notice of Objection filed by the de Berner Respondents was removed.

The Estate Trustee sought directions from the court regarding the interpretation and distribution of two estates following the murder of the testators by their adopted son.

The central issue was the application of the criminal forfeiture rule (slayer rule) and whether the estates should be held in trust for the murderer's potential unborn children or accelerated to alternate beneficiaries.

The court applied the implied intention approach, ruling that the murderer was disentitled from any benefit.

It further determined that the gifts to the murderer's unborn issue should also fail due to public policy and the absence of living issue at the time of disentitlement, thereby accelerating the distribution of the estates to the next lineal beneficiaries (the testatrix's brothers), subject to specific annuity provisions.

The applicants, estate trustees of the late Ellen Kates, sought to propound codicils executed in August 2011.

The objectors challenged the codicils on the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence, citing the testator's diagnosis of moderate Alzheimer's disease.

The court found that despite the cognitive impairment, the testator understood the nature and effect of the codicils, the extent of her property, and the claims of those excluded.

The court also found no evidence of coercion or fraud amounting to undue influence.

The codicils were admitted to probate.

The Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL) brought a motion to sell the estate's sole significant asset, a residential property, prior to trial.

The respondent, who resided in the property and claimed ownership under a disputed codicil, opposed the sale.

The court granted the motion, finding that the respondent had failed to comply with previous court orders regarding carrying costs and disclosure, had maximized the property's line of credit, and that the ETDL required estate funds to protect the asset and advance the litigation.

The deceased was the sole owner of one life insurance policy and the joint owner, with his wife, of a second policy.

He made inadequate provision for his dependant children.

The children applied for dependants' relief under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The Court of Appeal held that the jointly-owned policy was not caught by s. 72(1)(f) of the SLRA and therefore did not form part of the deceased's estate for the purpose of dependants' relief.

The court also upheld the applications judge's decision to charge the proceeds of the solely-owned policy for the support of the dependant children.