Ayda A-Tabrizi

On an urgent estates motion, the applicant sought interim dependent's support and the appointment of an estate trustee during litigation pending a dependent support application.

The court held the evidentiary record was incomplete and did not establish that the applicant was receiving support from the deceased or fell within an enumerated dependent category under Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act.

Interim support was therefore refused.

However, because estate bills were going unpaid and the estate property was at risk, the court appointed an estate trustee during litigation on usual terms, with the trustee's fees to be borne initially by the applicant's share of the estate subject to reallocation at the merits hearing.

No costs were awarded because the applicant was only partly successful and the motion process was unfair to the self-represented respondent.

This is a costs decision following the dismissal of a removal application and the approval of an interim passing of accounts in an estate matter.

The applicant sought to remove the estate trustee, alleging mismanagement and self-dealing, and objected to 71 items in the estate accounting.

The applicant abandoned all but one claim before hearing, which was settled during the hearing.

The court awarded costs to the estate trustee on a substantial indemnity basis for the removal application and approved increased costs for the passing of accounts application, with the latter to be paid from estate assets.

The decision concerns the administration of the estate of Faina Rogovsky, focusing on the removal of the estate trustee, the passing of accounts, and the determination of trustee compensation.

The court dismissed the application to remove Josef Rogovsky as estate trustee, approved the interim passing of accounts with modifications, and fixed trustee compensation at $32,000 plus HST.

The court also addressed the parties' disputes over loans, asset valuations, and the conduct of the estate administration, emphasizing the need for clarity, prudence, and fairness in estate management.

The plaintiff brought an urgent ex parte motion seeking a preservation order over cryptocurrency, a worldwide Mareva injunction, and an Anton Piller order against the defendants for an outstanding balance of $300,000 USD from a cryptocurrency exchange.

The court granted the preservation order and the Anton Piller order with modifications to protect solicitor-client privilege, but dismissed the Mareva injunction, finding no sufficient risk of asset dissipation to avoid judgment.

The applicants sought the appointment of an Inspector to investigate the management and affairs of two companies, Morris Kerbel Holdings Limited and Paladium Construction Limited, alleging oppressive and unfairly prejudicial conduct by the respondents under the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the applicants had not met the second and third parts of the three-part test for appointing an inspector, specifically regarding the necessity and appropriateness of such an extraordinary remedy given that information could be obtained through ordinary litigation tools like an oppression proceeding.

The court also noted concerns about the broad scope, unknown costs, and lack of company resources to fund the investigation.

The appellants (purchasers) appealed a summary judgment order forfeiting their deposit after a failed residential real estate transaction.

They argued they were entitled to rescind the agreement because the MLS listing misrepresented the home's square footage.

The motion judge found that the purchasers, one of whom was an experienced real estate agent, relied on their personal inspection of the property rather than the MLS listing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge's factual inferences were reasonable and supported by the evidence, including the purchasers' repeated affirmations of their intent to close after discovering the actual square footage.

The plaintiff buyer failed to close a real estate transaction due to an inability to secure financing.

The plaintiff attempted to renegotiate the purchase price and deposit, which the defendant sellers rejected.

The defendants subsequently sold the property to another buyer for $5,000 less and moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action and release the $65,000 deposit to them.

The court granted the motion, finding no bad faith, no failure to mitigate, and no grounds for relief from forfeiture, as the deposit was reasonable and there was no unconscionability.