Wills, Estates, Trusts Law

The self‑represented moving party sought to reopen a 2012 judgment dismissing a dependant’s support claim under Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act, relying on Rule 59.06(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and alleging fraud and newly discovered facts.

The court held that all alleged misrepresentations regarding the value of the estate were known to the moving party prior to the original decision and therefore did not constitute newly discovered evidence.

The court emphasized the principle of finality in litigation and found no basis to set aside the prior judgment.

While the court noted potential issues regarding an earlier consent order dismissing related claims, that issue had not been properly brought before the court.

The motion to reopen the trial and set aside the 2012 judgment was refused.

The court addressed disputes regarding the interpretation and implementation of Minutes of Settlement in estate litigation between family members and an estate trustee during litigation.

Following earlier endorsements clarifying settlement terms, the judge directed the parties to submit competing draft orders reflecting the intended disposition.

The principal issues concerned the timing of a payment obligation tied to a $500,000 amount from an estate interest and whether provisions addressing the estate trustee’s role should appear in the final order.

Applying a “final offer selection” approach, the court concluded that the draft orders proposed by the estate trustee most accurately reflected the settlement and prior endorsements.

The court therefore signed and entered those orders.

A dispute arose regarding the passing of accounts of a trustee who had acted under a power of attorney for property.

Siblings of the trustee objected to certain expenditures contained in the accounts for a defined period.

The court determined that the evidentiary record was not sufficiently organized for adjudication and directed the objectors to prepare a detailed document identifying each contested expenditure, the trustee’s explanation, and any accountant’s treatment of the item.

The court ordered the document to be served on the trustee for further comment and directed the parties to obtain a judicial resolution date thereafter.

Following earlier reasons determining that insurance proceeds formed part of an estate and that a claimant qualified as a spouse under s. 57 of the Succession Law Reform Act, the court addressed costs of the proceeding.

The applicants sought full indemnity costs payable from the estate after partial success at trial and on an earlier motion.

The respondents argued the requested costs were excessive and should be denied or reserved.

The court held that a proper costs determination required resolution of outstanding issues, including whether the claimant qualified as a dependant and the amount and form of support to be ordered.

Costs of the prior motion, preliminary motion, and trial phase were therefore reserved to the judge who will ultimately determine the remaining issues.

Following a guardianship decision appointing the applicant as guardian of the person and property of an incapable individual, the court addressed costs.

The applicant sought costs against one respondent who had opposed the application.

The respondent argued that costs should be paid from the incapable person's assets and that the applicant’s settlement offer should not affect the award.

The court held that the applicant was successful and entitled to costs because the respondent opposed the application, and that the settlement offer was not determinative.

Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity basis in the all‑inclusive amount of $10,000 payable by the respondent.

The plaintiffs brought motions to continue an action against the estate of a deceased defendant, to amend their statement of claim, and related procedural relief.

The court considered the interaction between Rules 10.02 and 11.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure concerning continuation of proceedings where a party has died.

Finding that the deceased’s estate had an interest in the proceeding and that the named executor had not taken formal steps to administer the estate, the court exercised discretion to allow the action to continue against the estate without requiring probate or formal continuation procedures.

The court further addressed scheduling and priority issues between a Rule 21 motion to determine a question of law and a motion to amend pleadings.

The action was ordered to continue against the estate and related motions were adjourned to be heard together at a later date.

Following a successful motion by certain beneficiaries to remove estate counsel, the court determined the costs consequences.

Applying Rule 57 principles governing costs in estate litigation, the court held that costs should generally follow the event and be borne personally by litigants rather than the estate except in narrow circumstances.

The court found the moving parties were entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis but reduced the claimed fees and disbursements as excessive, including reducing photocopy disbursements.

Costs were fixed at reduced amounts and ordered payable personally by the estate trustees on a joint and several basis.

Costs decision following applications under the Substitute Decisions Act concerning the care and property of an elderly mother.

The litigation involved two groups of siblings disputing issues including compensation for caregiving.

Most issues settled before the hearing, leaving only a compensation issue which was decided in the earlier merits decision.

The court determined responsibility for legal costs, including those of court-appointed counsel under s. 3 of the Substitute Decisions Act.

The court ordered that certain preparation and hearing costs of s. 3 counsel and one group of siblings be paid by the unsuccessful parties, while other costs were borne by each party individually or paid from the incapable person's property.

The estate trustee of a deceased joint owner brought a partition application seeking the sale of a former matrimonial home still occupied by the deceased’s former spouse.

The respondent opposed the sale, arguing that it would cause hardship due to her health conditions and financial circumstances.

The court reviewed the respondent’s financial position, housing suitability, and available alternatives, and found that the alleged hardship did not approach oppression.

The evidence showed the home was poorly suited to the respondent’s physical limitations and that sale proceeds would provide sufficient resources for alternative accommodation.

The court ordered that the property be listed for sale and directed that the net proceeds be held in trust pending agreement or further order.

The estate trustee during litigation brought a motion seeking a vesting order to implement transfers of land and easements required by a prior settlement order, and also sought a contempt finding against the respondent for failing to provide instructions necessary to complete registration.

The dispute concerned the location of a pedestrian right-of-way to the waterfront that the respondent argued was impractical due to steep terrain.

The court held that the respondent had entered into the settlement with knowledge of the terrain and had failed for several years to bring any motion to vary or clarify the order.

While the vesting order should be granted to implement the nearly six-year-old order, the court was not satisfied that the respondent had deliberately disobeyed a clear and unequivocal order.

Accordingly, contempt was not established beyond a reasonable doubt.

The estate trustee sought clarification of a prior costs order arising from estate litigation between the trustee and a beneficiary.

The issue was whether the respondent beneficiary was required to pay the ordered costs to the trustee personally or in her representative capacity as estate trustee.

Applying the modern approach to costs in estate litigation, which generally follows ordinary civil costs principles unless public policy considerations apply, the court reaffirmed that the losing party must bear the costs personally.

The court concluded that the respondent beneficiary must pay the awarded costs directly to the applicant in her personal capacity.

In an estate dispute between siblings, the estate trustee moved to dismiss an application requiring an accounting of estate assets on the basis of delay.

The delay resulted largely from the applicant’s former lawyer, who had misled the client and failed to advance the proceeding while suffering from severe personal and mental health issues.

The court held that the delay was adequately explained, the applicant intended to pursue the claim, and the moving party had also failed to take steps to advance the matter or his own related motion regarding a purported will.

The court further found no non-compensable prejudice resulting from the delay.

Exercising its discretion, the court declined to dismiss the application.

An application under the Partition Act sought partition and sale of a residential property jointly owned by three registered owners, while a related application alleged that one owner held her one-third interest in trust or constructive trust for another family member who had contributed financially to the property.

The court found no evidence of an express trust and held that the claim was barred by the Statute of Frauds.

The constructive trust claim also failed because the alleged contributor’s payments were analogous to rent and did not establish unjust enrichment or a causal link warranting a proprietary remedy.

As a co-tenant, the moving party had a prima facie right to partition and sale, and the hardship of relocation did not amount to oppression sufficient to deny that right.

The court ordered partition and sale of the property with accounting issues to be determined on a reference.

An application was brought by family members seeking appointment as guardians of property and personal care for an elderly individual alleged to be incapable due to dementia and declining living conditions.

Medical evidence from the long‑time family physician and a geriatric assessment confirmed significant cognitive impairment and inability to manage finances, medications, and personal care.

The court found the respondent incapable under the Substitute Decisions Act and determined that guardianship was necessary for both property and personal care.

The applicants were appointed joint guardians, the respondent’s prior powers of attorney were terminated, and authority was granted to enlist police assistance if necessary to secure the respondent’s safety and relocation.

Security for the guardianship was waived initially unless assets exceeded a specified threshold.

An estate brought an application seeking an order dispensing with service on a missing co-owner and a vesting order declaring the estate the legal and beneficial owner of a property.

The property had been purchased decades earlier by the deceased and the respondent as joint tenants, but the respondent had vacated the property and had not been heard from for over thirty years.

The deceased remained in exclusive possession of the property, paid all expenses, and treated the property as his own throughout that period.

Applying the principles of adverse possession and s. 11 of the Real Property Limitations Act, the court held that possession by one joint tenant can found a claim against another.

The court inferred the deceased’s intention to exclude the absent co-owner and granted a vesting order in favour of the estate.

Application and cross‑application concerning the validity of a life insurance change‑of‑beneficiary form executed shortly before the insured’s death.

The applicant sought a declaration that the 2011 form reallocating most of the insurance proceeds to her was valid, or alternatively rectification of the form.

The court held the form was not a valid declaration under the Insurance Act because the allocation percentages were altered after signing and the applicant failed to prove the insured signed the form as altered.

The court also found numerous suspicious circumstances surrounding the preparation of the document, rebutting the presumption that the insured knew and approved its contents.

The applicant failed to establish knowledge and approval or that the form reflected the insured’s true testamentary intentions.

Following Minutes of Settlement resolving estate litigation concerning farm property and estate assets, the parties disputed the interpretation of tax liability provisions in the settlement.

The responding party intended to pursue a tax strategy regarding estate filings and potential CRA assessments, while the moving party sought clarification and orders restricting what she characterized as a high-risk tax plan.

The court held that the Minutes of Settlement constituted a contract whose terms were clear and unambiguous when interpreted using standard contractual interpretation principles.

The agreement allocated full responsibility for tax restructuring, related transactions, and resulting liabilities to the responding party, including an obligation to indemnify the moving party and the estate trustee for any resulting liability.

The request for further clarification and restrictions was therefore dismissed.

The applicant sought an Order for Directions in an application challenging powers of attorney executed by his mother and seeking to replace the appointed attorneys for property and personal care.

The parties agreed to most procedural directions, including a capacity assessment, but disputed proposed terms requiring automatic production of extensive medical records and a lawyer’s file if incapacity were later found.

The court held the proposed production terms were premature, overly broad, and procedurally improper because non‑parties affected by the order had not been served.

The court emphasized the distinctions in the Substitute Decisions Act between capacity to grant powers of attorney and incapacity to manage property or personal care.

The contested production terms were refused and directions were issued for capacity assessments and procedural steps in the application.

In a guardianship proceeding under the Substitute Decisions Act involving competing powers of attorney and a dispute between siblings, the applicant sought orders compelling the respondent attorney to pass accounts, appointing an interim guardian of property, and adjournment of the guardianship application pending the accounting.

The court held that the motion was premature because documentary disclosure remained outstanding and cross-examinations had not yet occurred.

While attorneys are fiduciaries required to maintain and provide accounts under s. 32 of the Substitute Decisions Act, the evidentiary record was incomplete and untested.

The court directed the parties to exchange financial records and proceed with cross-examinations before seeking further relief.

The applicants sought removal of the estate trustee under ss. 5 and 37 of the Trustee Act and the appointment of a replacement trustee.

The court reviewed the governing principle that removal of a trustee depends primarily on the welfare of the beneficiaries and whether the continuation of the trustee would impair proper administration of the trust.

Evidence showed escalating hostility between the estate trustee and beneficiaries, questionable handling of estate assets, and conduct demonstrating disregard for the beneficiaries’ interests.

The court concluded that the level of animosity and breakdown in trust would prevent proper administration of the estate and ongoing trust obligations.

The estate trustee was removed and an independent lawyer was appointed as replacement trustee.