Wills, Estates, Trusts Law

The plaintiffs, grandchildren of the deceased Mary Jane Hockney, brought an action against Mary Jane Kneeland, the estate trustee, for failing to distribute estate funds and for breaches of trust, fiduciary duty, conversion, and unjust enrichment.

The court found Kneeland, a lawyer, liable in both her personal and trustee capacities, noting her egregious and intentional misconduct.

The court awarded the plaintiffs the outstanding estate funds, aggravated damages for distress, and prejudgment interest, and left open the possibility for further claims if substantiated.

This decision concerns the passing of accounts and compensation claims by Anne-Marie Alonzi, attorney and estate trustee for the late Ciriaco Forgione.

The court reviews the factual and legal context of the family dispute, the duties and compensation of attorneys and estate trustees, and the management of the estate’s properties.

The court finds that, despite record-keeping deficiencies and family conflict, Ms. Alonzi and her husband provided exceptional care to Mr. Forgione.

The court reduces compensation for failure to properly account for cash payments but upholds the majority of the claims, recognizing the challenging circumstances and the value of the services provided.

The appellants challenged the validity of their deceased father's 2021 will and an inter vivos property transfer, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by the respondents.

The application judge dismissed their motion for directions, finding they failed to meet the minimal evidentiary threshold under Rule 75.06.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the application judge's assessment of the evidence regarding capacity or undue influence, nor in his treatment of the evidence or sufficiency of reasons for dismissing the challenge to the property transfer.

The plaintiff, Liebgard Scharfenberg, sought dependant's relief from the estate of her deceased husband, August Karl-Heinz Scharfenberg, under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The Deceased had made no provision for her in his will, citing a cohabitation agreement that released all claims to one another's estate.

The court found that the plaintiff was a dependant at the time of the Deceased's death, but ultimately dismissed her application for support.

The court found the plaintiff's credibility to be low and concluded that she had been financially opportunistic throughout the relationship, having divested herself of a significant asset from a previous marriage without rational explanation, and that she had not suffered financial detriment from the relationship with the Deceased.

The court held that it would be unconscionable to provide support from the estate given her actions and self-sufficiency.

The applicants sought orders to remove the respondent as executor and estate trustee of the Estate of Milton Westover, revoke her certificate of appointment, and appoint a replacement trustee.

The applicants alleged the trustee delayed administration, had conflicts of interest, wasted assets, failed to account, disrespected court orders, and lacked capacity.

The respondent argued the applicants lacked standing.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the applicants, as judgment creditors or potential judgment creditors, did not possess the requisite "financial interest" in the estate to establish standing under Rule 75.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, consistent with a narrow interpretation of this term in estate litigation.

The appellant, a disbarred lawyer, appealed the dismissal of his application for a certificate of appointment as estate trustee with a will.

The application judge had refused the appointment due to concerns about the appellant's potential unlicensed practice of law, given his professional history and involvement in the will's preparation and subsequent rapid steps to secure his appointment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, confirming the Superior Court's inherent jurisdiction to refuse an estate trustee appointment, even if unopposed, to uphold public confidence in the administration of justice.

The Court also dismissed a motion to adduce fresh evidence, finding it could have been adduced earlier.

In matrimonial proceedings, the court held a focused hearing to determine the beneficial ownership of a property gratuitously transferred by the respondent to himself and his adult son as joint tenants.

The applicant argued for a resulting trust, while the respondent contended it was a gift.

The court found that the respondent failed to provide clear, convincing, and cogent evidence to rebut the presumption of resulting trust, concluding that the respondent remained the beneficial owner of his son's one-half interest in the property.

The plaintiff, Fei Wang, brought an ex parte motion for a Mareva injunction against the defendant, Wei Wu, to freeze a CIBC revolving line of credit and for an order permitting the registration of a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a property.

The parties, cousins, jointly contributed to the purchase of the property, with the plaintiff contributing a significant majority of the funds, despite title being solely in the defendant's name.

The plaintiff alleged an express or resulting trust.

Following the termination of the defendant's employment with the plaintiff's company and the defendant listing the property for sale with an intent to return to China, the plaintiff sought to protect his beneficial interest.

The court granted a temporary Mareva injunction for 10 days and ordered the plaintiff to provide notice for the CPL motion, scheduling both for a hearing on May 6, 2024.

The applicant, in his capacity as Estate Trustee, sought a declaration that the deceased's August 28, 2000 Will was valid and an order requiring the respondent to vacate estate property and pay occupation rent.

The respondent presented a modified version of the will, arguing for its validity or for an intestacy, and sought to buy out the applicant's interest in the property.

The court found the original 2000 Will to be valid, dismissed the modified will and other handwritten notes as non-testamentary, and ordered the respondent to vacate the property and pay occupation rent, as he had no legal interest in the estate property and his actions caused delay and expense to the insolvent estate.

The defendants brought a motion seeking an interim or final order to authorize the transfer of shares held by the Jack Witiluk Family Trust in Phase 2 Ventures Inc. to Jeffrey Witiluk and Ryan Witiluk.

The plaintiffs opposed, citing prejudice, oppression, and technical issues related to board approval and director appointment.

The court found the plaintiffs' opposition lacked merit, emphasizing the long-standing nature of the litigation and the pragmatic business sense of the proposed transfer.

Exercising its discretion under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, the court authorized the share transfer, dismissing the plaintiffs' technical objections.

Costs were awarded against the plaintiff, Gerald Witiluk, personally.

The plaintiffs, Valerie Barkley and Ronald Beaupre, brought a motion for default judgment against Nicholas Dookhie and Diane Chetram, who were noted in default in a class action concerning losses from a syndicated mortgage investment.

The court found Dookhie and Chetram liable for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty, having failed to meet the standard of care for mortgage brokers by not performing due diligence, misrepresenting the investment as safe, and failing to assess client suitability or provide required disclosures.

The motion was granted, awarding the subclass of 11 class members $434,017.40 plus pre- and post-judgment interest at rates of 12% or 9% depending on the investor's referral source.

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.

Giuseppe Paolo Magnotta died intestate, survived by his wife, Melissa Magnotta (Applicant), and his mother, Rossana Magnotta (Respondent).

Melissa applied for a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee without a Will.

Rossana objected, initially citing Melissa's alleged threat to exhume the deceased's remains and misrepresentation of estate liabilities, and sought a neutral third-party trustee.

The court found Rossana's objections unreasonable, as Melissa was the sole beneficiary and her "threat" to exhume was not acted upon.

Rossana's claim of a financial interest as a creditor for funeral expenses was also deemed insufficient to grant standing under Rule 75.03, as creditors have other remedies.

The court granted Melissa's application, dispensed with the administration bond, and awarded Melissa partial indemnity costs against Rossana.

The appellant, former CEO and chairman of Sino-Forest Corporation (SFC), appealed a trial judgment awarding damages of $2.627 billion plus $5 million in punitive damages for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.

The appellant argued that the litigation trust lacked standing to pursue claims that overlapped with class actions, that the damages award created double recovery risks, and that the transfer of assets constituted an election barring the claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding that the litigation trust held separate and distinct corporate causes of action from those of individual shareholders and noteholders in the class actions, that the damages award was properly calculated based on SFC's losses, and that no election doctrine applied.

The applicant sought the sale of jointly owned property (a condominium, camping trailer, and boat) and spousal support following the parties' separation.

The respondent sought to set aside the transfer of the condominium into joint ownership, arguing a resulting trust due to a gratuitous transfer for estate planning purposes.

The court found the condominium transfer was gratuitous and the presumption of a resulting trust in favor of the respondent was not rebutted.

Consequently, the condominium title was ordered transferred back to the respondent's sole name.

The applicant's claims for the camping trailer and spousal support were dismissed due to lack of consideration for the trailer and insufficient evidence to support spousal support entitlement.

The applicants sought the removal of the two respondents as executors of their deceased father's will and directions for estate administration due to a prolonged inability to cooperate and administer the estate.

The court found clear evidence that the siblings were unable to work together, leading to a frozen state of inaction detrimental to all beneficiaries.

The respondents, particularly George Voloudakis, failed to comply with an interim order regarding the estate property.

The court granted the application, removing both respondents as executors and issuing comprehensive directions for the estate's administration, including the sale of the primary asset (the family home) and the handling of financial documents and tenant rents.

Costs were awarded against the respondents, payable from their shares of the estate.

The Atkinson defendants brought a motion seeking approval to withdraw funds held in trust to pay legal fees and costs awards.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing that the funds were subject to a solicitor's undertaking given by the Atkinson defendants' counsel to hold them in trust pending the resolution of the dispute.

The court found that a clear and unambiguous undertaking existed, binding the funds to remain in trust until entitlement was determined by the court or by agreement between the parties.

Consequently, the Atkinson defendants' request to access the funds was denied.

The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company, as Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL) of the Estate of Mary Kathleen Kuklis, applied for directions regarding the sale of real property, disposition of personal property, and production of documents from Martin Kuklis, a former attorney for property.

Following a settlement of the application, the issue of costs remained.

The court found Martin Kuklis's conduct, including his failure to pass accounts and self-interested opposition, warranted an award of substantial indemnity costs against him personally, payable first from his share of the Estate.

Karla Anne Shawn Kuklis, Shawna Ellis, and Wesley Kuklis were not held personally responsible for costs, and their request for costs was dismissed.

The ETDL was awarded full indemnity costs, with the difference between full and substantial indemnity paid from the Estate.