Andrew Yaroslav Joseph Sheremeta

This decision addresses the issue of costs following the dismissal of an application brought by beneficiaries against estate trustees.

The court reaffirmed its earlier decision to award costs to the respondent estate, applying the "loser pay" principle in estate litigation.

The court found the applicant's claims lacked merit and criticized his conduct throughout the litigation, including inefficient pursuit of claims, numerous adjournments, and groundless allegations of misconduct.

The applicant's plea of impecuniosity was rejected due to a lack of supporting evidence.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs of $155,000 to the respondents, to be offset against future distributions to the applicant from the estate.

The applicant husband brought an application seeking directions on the interpretation of his deceased wife's will, the removal of the estate's executors, and an immediate distribution of $652,705.35.

He argued that the will's treatment of his life interest in one-quarter of the residue created a partial intestacy upon his death.

The court rejected this interpretation, applying the golden rule of construction to find that the testatrix intended the remainder of his share to be divided among the other three shares.

The court also dismissed the claims for immediate distribution and removal of the executors, finding no maladministration and noting that the estate's delayed income was due to a separate foreign estate not controlled by the executors.

Following a successful appeal of a procedural ruling regarding a contempt motion, the parties neglected to address the costs of the proceeding before the motion judge.

The appellant requested that the Court of Appeal determine those costs, seeking $20,000.

The respondent argued the matter should be remitted to the motion judge or that no costs should be awarded.

The Court of Appeal declined to remit the issue to avoid further delay and expense, and awarded the appellant costs of the motion below fixed at $15,000 all-inclusive.

The respondent obtained a money judgment against the appellant and secured an order compelling him to attend an examination in aid of execution with specified documents.

The day before the examination, the appellant made an assignment in bankruptcy.

He attended the examination but brought a Notice of Stay of Proceedings instead of the documents.

The motion judge allowed the respondent's contempt motion to proceed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the examination was stayed by section 69.3 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act upon the bankruptcy, and therefore the failure to bring documents could not found contempt.

The mother brought a motion to enforce child support and section 7 expenses under a separation agreement.

The father brought a cross-motion to change the agreement to terminate or reduce his support obligations.

The court held that because the separation agreement had not been filed under section 35 of the Family Law Act, it lacked jurisdiction to vary the agreement under Rule 15, but retained jurisdiction to enforce it under Rule 14.

The court enforced the agreement, ordering the father to pay child support and section 7 expenses for the son attending college, but found the obligation for the daughter ceased when she completed her degree.

The moving party brought a motion to quash an appeal from a lower court judgment on the basis that the judgment was an interlocutory order.

The lower court had ruled that contempt proceedings against the responding party were not stayed by his filing for bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, but adjourned the contempt motion to a later date.

The Court of Appeal held that because the lower court's ruling deprived the responding party of a substantive defence that could have resolved the proceedings, the order was final.

The motion to quash the appeal was dismissed.