Anna Katyk

The applicant, a beneficiary of an estate, brought a motion for contempt against the respondent estate trustee for failing to provide an accounting of the estate as previously ordered by Justice R. Smith.

The court found the respondent in contempt due to his continued non-compliance and lack of explanation, emphasizing the egregious nature of an estate trustee's failure to account.

The court ordered the respondent to purge his contempt within 60 days by complying with the original order and to pay the applicant's costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The judge remained seized of the matter, warning of more serious sanctions if non-compliance continued.

An application was brought to validate a will that failed to meet formal execution requirements under the Succession Law Reform Act, as the subscribing witnesses were not actually present.

The court applied section 21.1 of the Act, which allows for the validation of improperly executed documents if they set out the deceased's testamentary intentions.

Despite the applicant, a beneficiary, having effectively witnessed the will, the court found no evidence of undue influence, and all other beneficiaries consented or did not oppose the validation.

The court declared the will valid and ordered costs to be paid from the estate.

The Superior Court of Justice granted a non-lawyer, James P. McGlone, leave to represent the plaintiff corporation, Tash Benson Group Inc., in an action for damages.

The court found that the corporation had demonstrated financial inability to retain counsel and that McGlone, its sole director, had provided sufficient evidence regarding corporate structure.

The decision also addressed costs, awarding the defendants partial indemnity costs of $4,000 for a prior related motion, payable after trial judgment, but no costs for the current motion.

The plaintiff corporation brought an action for damages against the defendants.

The sole director of the plaintiff corporation brought a motion for leave to represent the corporation pursuant to Rule 15.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court reviewed the factors for granting leave, noting the applicant's shortcomings as a litigant and the lack of documentary evidence regarding the corporation's internal structure and financial situation.

The motion was dismissed, but the applicant was granted leave to bring the motion again on a further and better record.