Barton Seguin

The applicant client sought payment of funds held in trust following an assessment of a solicitor's account at nil.

The respondent law firm brought a cross-motion seeking to rely on a previous notice of motion or, alternatively, an extension of time to appeal the Superseding Report and Certificate of Assessment.

The court held that the law firm could not rely on its previous motion, which had been fully disposed of.

However, applying the factors for extending the time to appeal, the court granted the law firm an extension on the conditions that it serve its notice of motion, transfer the disputed funds to the applicant's counsel in trust, and pay the costs of the motion.

The plaintiff, a surety company, brought a motion for summary judgment to compel the defendant, a personal representative of an estate, to post collateral under an indemnity agreement.

The defendant had breached his fiduciary duty by improperly distributing estate funds to maternal heirs, failing to investigate paternal heirs' claims, and not complying with a Michigan probate court's disgorgement order.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding the indemnity agreement clear and rejecting the defendant's defenses of *non est factum* and relief from forfeiture due to his carelessness and unreasonable conduct.

The applicant sought to confirm the boundary between her property and the objector's property under the Boundaries Act.

The dispute centered on the location of 'Point B', with the applicant's surveyor relying on a short standard iron bar (SSIB) planted in 2018, and the objector's surveyor relying on a pipe found in 2016.

Applying the hierarchy of survey evidence, the Deputy Director of Titles found that the SSIB represented the best evidence of the original 'gas pipe' monument established in 1962, as its measurements aligned with historical field notes.

The application was allowed and the boundary proposed by the applicant was confirmed.