Arieh Abraham Bloom

The applicant sought to join an application for directions regarding the interpretation of a will and the sale of a cottage with an application to pass estate accounts.

The court dismissed the request for joinder, finding that the issues were not interwoven, there was no risk of inconsistent findings, and joining the straightforward directions application with the complex and contested passing of accounts would cause undue delay and prejudice to the estate.

Multiple appeals arose from a complex family estate dispute following the death of a spouse whose estate passed to the surviving spouse under mirror wills.

Two sons alleged that a handwritten document and surrounding circumstances created both a mutual wills agreement and a secret trust requiring equal distribution of the estate among the three sons after the surviving spouse’s death.

The Court of Appeal held that the evidence did not establish a binding mutual wills agreement or the elements of a secret trust, emphasizing the absence of a transfer of property and clear contractual intent.

The court also upheld the trial judge’s treatment of certain inter vivos transfers and confirmed that a joint tenancy in a condominium had been severed through the parties’ course of dealings.

All appeals were dismissed.

The applicants brought a motion to compel the respondent to answer questions refused on examination for discovery and to enforce a prior costs award.

The respondent paid the costs award two days before the hearing, rendering the enforcement aspect moot.

The court ordered the respondent to answer 15 of the refused questions and upheld 11 refusals, directing a follow-up examination by videoconference.

The court awarded the applicants full indemnity costs thrown away for the enforcement motion and partial indemnity costs for the divided success on the refusals motion, totaling $12,942.36.

In a long-standing and highly acrimonious family trust dispute, the court considered multiple motions, including motions to dismiss for delay and abuse of process, and motions for a further and better accounting.

The court found that the plaintiffs (two of the sons) had engaged in an abuse of process through a 'scorched-earth' litigation strategy, including failing to produce relevant documents they controlled, changing counsel repeatedly, refusing to mediate, and launching collateral attacks.

Consequently, the court dismissed their actions.

However, recognizing that the trusts still required an accounting for the benefit of the other beneficiaries (the grandchildren), the court ordered the remaining trustees to provide a further and better accounting, and ordered the redemption of the matriarch's shares in the underlying holding company.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario addressed costs for both the appeal and the underlying summary judgment motion.

The parties agreed to no costs for the appeal due to divided success.

For the summary judgment motion, the court declined to award costs to the primary appellants (Bistricer) or respondents (Rubner), citing reasons such as new arguments on appeal and divided success.

However, the litigation guardian for Eda Rubner, who was aligned with the original applicants, was awarded partial recovery of costs for the summary judgment motion.

The appellant appealed a lower court's decision, challenging the admissibility of a recording and the finding that a joint tenancy had been severed.

The Court of Appeal rejected the argument regarding the recording's inadmissibility, finding it relevant and admissible.

The court also found no basis to interfere with the application judge's decision on joint tenancy severance, as it was a fact-specific inquiry.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the estate, noting the litigation was necessitated by the deceased's actions.

The applicant sought to enforce a July 10, 2019 order from the Supreme Court of the State of New York appointing a temporary guardian for the respondent's mother and ordering the applicant, as trustee of a spousal trust, to pay funds for her well-being and investigation of her whereabouts.

The court applied the test for recognizing foreign judgments, finding the New York court had jurisdiction and the funding order was final.

The court recognized the order regarding the funding provisions but declined to recognize the provisions granting access to medical and confidential information due to privacy concerns.

This appeal concerns a financial dispute among adult siblings over entitlement to distributions from a valuable investment in a residential development in Oakville, Ontario.

The investment, originally a 10% interest in the Lower Fourth Joint Venture purchased by the father in 1969, was held by the mother in trust for three children in equal shares.

The daughter disclaimed her interest for tax reasons.

When distributions began in 2014, they were deposited into bank accounts opened in the mother's name.

The central issue was whether the mother held the distributions as bare trustee for the daughter or whether the daughter had received only individual gifts.

The Court of Appeal found that a bare trust existed over the bank account contents for the benefit of both the daughter and one son in equal shares, reversing the trial judge's finding that the mother held the funds beneficially.

The plaintiff, on behalf of his deceased father's estate, brought a motion to compel the passing of accounts regarding the spending of his father's deceased wife, who had acted as the father's Attorney for Property for nearly ten years.

The defendant, the wife's daughter and estate trustee, opposed the motion, arguing she could not account for her mother's spending and would be unfairly prejudiced.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there is no statutory limitation period for passing accounts, ordering one in these circumstances would result in a clear injustice, and the issues surrounding suspicious property transfers were better suited for the outstanding main action.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a prior ruling where Salvatore Benedetto was unsuccessful against 2453912 Ontario Inc. Benedetto argued for no costs, claiming the legal issue regarding deposit forfeiture under s. 21(4) of the Business Corporations Act was "novel." 2453912 Ontario Inc. sought costs, including substantial indemnity based on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court rejected the "novelty" argument, finding existing case law provided adequate guidance.

It also declined substantial indemnity, noting the Rule 49 offer lacked compromise and the underlying issue, while complex, presented reasonable uncertainty.

Partial indemnity costs of $10,000 were awarded to 2453912 Ontario Inc.

Miriam Stein, 90, has a feeding tube.

Her three daughters, Helen Brunswick, Frieda Oren, and Gloria Stein, were joint attorneys for personal care.

Gloria opposed the feeding tube, while Helen and Frieda supported it.

They entered into "Minutes of Settlement" for a geriatric assessment to guide decisions on the feeding tube.

When the tube needed replacement, they disagreed.

Gloria resigned as attorney for personal care, believing the Minutes would protect her position.

Helen and Frieda proceeded with the replacement.

Gloria subsequently sought to enforce the Minutes for a specific assessment.

The court found the Minutes were not a legally binding agreement, lacking offer, acceptance, consideration, and certainty of terms, and became moot upon Gloria's resignation.

The court dismissed Gloria's motion and application, and exempted Helen and Frieda from consulting Gloria on matters related to Miriam's feeding tube due to irreconcilable differences.

The appellant signed an agreement for purchase and sale of real property as a buyer "in trust for a company to be incorporated without any personal liabilities" and provided a $100,000 deposit.

When the appellant advised the vendor that he would not close the transaction, the vendor refused to return the deposit.

The motion judge granted summary judgment in favour of the vendor, finding that the deposit was forfeited.

The appellant appealed, arguing that section 21(4) of the Business Corporations Act, which exempts pre-incorporation contract signatories from personal liability, should also exempt them from forfeiture of the deposit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a deposit stands as security for performance of the contract and is distinct from the purchaser's contractual obligations.

The court found that the phrase "without any personal liabilities" did not extend to the deposit, as the contract contained no express provision to that effect, and such a contrary intention must be expressly stated.

A commercial real estate deal involving three properties failed to close.

The plaintiff, NJS Capital Management Inc., brought a summary judgment motion for breach of contract, while the defendants counterclaimed, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, seeking rectification, or rescission based on unconscionability, arguing the deals were cross-conditional and a package.

The court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, finding the defendants breached the contracts and dismissing the counterclaims, concluding there was no oral agreement for cross-conditionality or misrepresentation, and the contracts were not unconscionable.

This endorsement addresses costs arising from an unsuccessful and untimely motion brought by Sarah Werner to vary an order appointing a litigation guardian for her mother, Ida Rubin.

The court found Ms. Werner's proposed motion to be an obstructionist tactic, lacking merit, and brought in breach of a scheduling order.

Due to Ms. Werner's reprehensible litigation conduct, the court awarded full indemnity costs against her to the applicant and litigation guardian.

Additionally, costs were awarded to other parties (Morris Rubin and The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company) from the estate, with these amounts to be allocated solely to Ms. Werner's share.

Joseph Pernica, litigation guardian for Ida Rubin, sought a case conference regarding his status amidst upcoming motions.

The endorsement addresses a purported motion by Sarah Werner to vary an order appointing Pernica as litigation guardian for Ida Rubin, arguing Pernica exceeded his mandate by obtaining Ida Rubin's banking records and challenging Ida Rubin's capacity.

The court declined to schedule Ms. Werner's motion, finding she lacked standing under Rules 59.06 and 7.06(1)(b).

The court affirmed Pernica's role as litigation guardian and provided specific directions for any future motion by Ida Rubin herself to remove the litigation guardian, emphasizing the need for transparency, personal affidavit, and attendance in open court for cross-examination due to the risk of abuse in ex parte proceedings.

The court also declined to stay the case, emphasizing the need for information sharing for mediation and a mechanism for fund distribution.

The defendant estate trustee brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss specific allegations of breach of a settlement agreement, arguing they were statute-barred and estopped.

The plaintiffs, beneficiaries of the estate, alleged breach of fiduciary duty, self-dealing, and fraudulent concealment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the issues were deeply intertwined with the broader claims, involved significant credibility disputes, and were not appropriate for partial summary judgment as they could lead to inconsistent findings at trial.

Following a series of motions and applications in a complex family estate and joint venture dispute, the court determined the appropriate costs awards.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to Mattamy Homes for an abandoned summary judgment motion and a successfully defended summary judgment motion.

The litigation guardian was also awarded partial indemnity costs.

However, the joint attorneys for property were awarded substantial indemnity costs of $180,000 against the Bistricers, as the court found the Bistricers' conduct in the litigation to be reprehensible, duplicitous, and driven by ulterior motives.

The applicant's husband died intestate, leaving a complex international estate.

The applicant sought an extension of the six-month deadline under section 6 of the Family Law Act to elect between an equalization payment and her entitlement under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The court granted a one-year extension, finding that the applicant needed more time to assemble a reasonable knowledge base to make an informed choice, the delay was incurred in good faith, and there was minimal prejudice to the estate.

Following a motion where the moving party successfully sought to withdraw admissions involving approximately $14,000,000, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court found that the responding parties took a tactical and precarious position in opposing the motion, as the granting of leave was foreseeable absent any evidence of prejudice.

Costs were awarded to the moving party fixed at $15,000.

The moving party, in the midst of complex family trust litigation, sought leave to withdraw admissions made in a previous affidavit and to file three new affidavits.

The moving party argued the admissions regarding multi-million dollar shareholder loans were made inadvertently due to confusion and reliance on her former, now-deceased counsel.

The responding parties opposed, arguing the admissions were formal and the new evidence was an attempt to repair her case mid-hearing.

The court granted the motion, finding the admissions were likely inadvertent, raised a triable issue, and caused no non-compensable legal prejudice to the responding parties.

The court emphasized the need to decide the case on its true merits rather than a solicitor's or party's mistake.