Bernadette Dietrich

The applicant brought a motion to remove the respondent's lawyer of record due to a conflict of interest, arguing the lawyer would be a material witness regarding disputed powers of attorney and real estate transactions.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to transfer the venue of the application.

The court dismissed the venue transfer motion for failing to comply with procedural rules.

The court granted the motion to remove the lawyer, finding that his involvement in the underlying transactions made him a necessary witness, creating a real conflict between his duty to the client and his duty to the court.

The court also directed the appointment of section 3 counsel for the respondent given the allegations regarding his capacity.

The applicant, acting as guardian of property for her incapable spouse, brought an application to pass her accounts.

The Public Guardian and Trustee objected to several categories of expenses, including unsupported expenses for the sale of a property, unknown credit card payments and transfers from a joint account, pre-guardianship medical expenses, and past legal fees.

The court found that the applicant breached her fiduciary duty by failing to provide vouchers for many expenses and commingling funds.

The applicant was ordered to reimburse the incapable person's estate for the unsupported expenses and transfers, though she was permitted a partial set-off for expenses incurred in Greece immediately following the spouse's accident.

The applicant was also ordered to pay costs personally.

The applicant brought a motion to compel a witness, his brother, to answer questions and produce documents refused during a Rule 39.03 examination.

The examination was conducted to gather evidence for a pending contempt motion against the trustees of family trusts for failing to produce accounting documents.

The court ordered the witness to answer the questions, finding that the information sought regarding certain mortgages had a semblance of relevancy to the issues on the contempt motion.

The creditors brought a motion for an adjournment pending the Ontario Labour Relations Board's determination of a related employer application.

The court found that the Board's determination was essential to deciding who is ultimately entitled to the funds paid into court by the garnishee.

Given the upcoming mediation and lack of prejudice to the non-parties, the court granted the adjournment without costs.

The applicant, as estate trustee, sought the court's advice and direction on three issues: the beneficial ownership and exigibility of a residential property (Concession Road Property), the legal validity of an insurance policy trust for the deceased's children, and leave to assign the estate into bankruptcy.

The court found that the Concession Road Property was beneficially owned by the deceased's ex-wife and was not exigible for estate creditors.

It also determined that the purported insurance policy trust was not legally binding due to precatory language and lack of certainty of subject matter.

Finally, the court denied leave for the estate to be assigned into bankruptcy, finding the applicant had not sufficiently proven the estate's insolvency.

This motion concerned the removal of RSM Canada Limited as the Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL) of the Estate of Peter Trezzi and as the court-appointed Manager of two corporations.

The moving party, Albert Trezzi, also sought the appointment of himself and his two sisters as Estate Trustees.

RSM did not oppose its discharge but sought a holdback for professional fees related to a pending passing of accounts.

The court granted the removal of RSM and the appointment of the new Estate Trustees, and ordered a holdback of $250,000 for RSM's fees, finding it equitable and consistent with public policy, despite the beneficiaries' objections to the quantum.

The applicant and respondent are siblings disputing the estate of their late father.

The respondent, named as Executrix, claimed the deceased's only asset was a joint bank account that passed to her by right of survivorship.

The court found the respondent failed to rebut the presumption of resulting trust and held the account on trust for the deceased.

The court further found the respondent breached her fiduciary duties to the deceased and the applicant by misappropriating over $155,000 from the deceased's accounts, largely to fund a gambling addiction.

The respondent was ordered to pay damages to the applicant representing his half of the misappropriated funds and the date-of-death account balance, plus full indemnity costs.

The moving party, Pamela Pal, sought an order for partition or sale of a residential property jointly owned with her daughter, Faythe R. Pal (the responding party), under the Partition Act.

Pamela owns an 80% interest, and Faythe, who resides in the property and operates a business from it, owns 20%.

Pamela sought to sell the property to access her equity and purchase a condominium for independent living.

Faythe opposed the sale, citing financial hardship and alleging bad faith on Pamela's part.

The court granted the partition or sale, finding Pamela had a prima facie right to the sale and was not acting in bad faith.

The court determined that Faythe's personal hardship and inconvenience were not sufficient reasons to deny the order.

The decision also addressed the sale of other jointly held assets (an Aruba timeshare and Milton Lands) and the conditional issuance of a writ of possession.

The Applicants, beneficiaries of an estate, challenged the compensation claimed by the Estate Trustees (Respondents) and the legal fees paid to the Respondents' law firm.

The court found that the Respondents could not rely on a compensation agreement incorporated into the will because it was not properly executed by the alternative trustee.

The court also found that the Respondents breached their fiduciary duty by requiring the Applicants to sign releases without proper explanation or advice, and by holding distributions hostage.

Applying the "five factors" for compensation, the court significantly reduced the executors' compensation from $300,000 to $194,933.84 plus HST, and disallowed a substantial portion of the legal fees claimed by the Respondents' firm, finding double-counting and unjustified charges.

Anil Persaud, as Litigation Administrator for the Estate of Rita Persaud, brought a motion seeking to dismiss applications by Girga Persaud and Mohini Persaud, declare Chabiraj Persaud in contempt of court, and for costs and transfer of funds.

The court dismissed both Girga's and Mohini's applications due to delay and vexatious conduct, respectively.

It declined to find Chabiraj in contempt for breach of a monetary order but found his conduct reprehensible.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded against Chabiraj and Mohini equally for the motions and applications.

The request to transfer all proceeds to the Litigation Administrator's counsel was denied, with only reimbursement for storage fees approved, pending collection of damages from Chabiraj and proper estate administration.

The applicant sought court advice and direction regarding the mental capacity of his wife, the respondent, Anna Naccarato, to manage her property and personal care.

The application also sought the release of a Continuing Power of Attorney for Property (CPOAP) and a Power of Attorney for Personal Care (POAPC) to the applicant, and his appointment as a partial, time-limited guardian of the respondent's person.

The court found the respondent incapable of managing her property and personal care (specifically health care, shelter, and safety) based on anecdotal evidence from family members and section 3 counsel, without requiring a formal capacity assessment.

The court ordered the release of the CPOAP to the applicant and appointed him as partial, time-limited guardian of the respondent's person with custodial and apprehension powers, but declined to order the release of the POAPC due to lack of evidence regarding its release conditions.

The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company, as Estate Trustee, sought court advice on interpreting a 1957 will establishing a charitable remainder trust.

The will's language was unclear regarding income beneficiaries among the Testator's grandchildren and the trust's administration.

The court determined that only Betty Burnett and Kathryn Baker were entitled to income, not Rosalie Anita Grimes or Robert Alan Jackson, due to specific conditions in the will regarding the number of children of the Testator's son.

The court also confirmed the trust's perpetual charitable nature, ruling against any wind-up or variation for the benefit of descendants without the Public Guardian and Trustee's consent, which was not given.

The applicant, Kathleen Florence Doherty, as Estate Trustee, sought an accounting and recovery of funds from Terrence Doherty, who, as attorney for property for the late Molly Marie Doherty, had withdrawn and transferred over $329,000 to himself, his spouse Sylvia, and their son Liam.

The court found that the transferred amounts were not valid inter vivos gifts and that Terrence breached his fiduciary duties.

Sylvia was found jointly and severally liable for knowingly assisting in the breach, while Liam was ordered to make restitution for the funds he received.

Full indemnity costs were awarded against the respondents due to the reprehensible conduct.

The applicant beneficiary sought to remove her aunt as the estate trustee, alleging mismanagement, hostility, and the wrongful transfer of the deceased's vehicle to herself.

The court declined to remove the estate trustee, finding that her mistakes did not endanger the trust property and that removal is a remedy of last resort.

Instead, the court imposed terms on the trustee's future administration of the estate's real property.

However, the court found that the estate trustee failed to prove the deceased made a valid inter vivos gift of the vehicle, ordering its return to the estate.

The applicants were successful in an application to determine entitlement to life insurance proceeds.

They sought costs of $26,568.93, relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle that they beat.

The respondents argued no costs should be payable because two of the applicants allegedly abandoned their claims.

The court rejected the respondents' argument, found the costs sought to be reasonable, and awarded the applicants their full costs of $26,568.93.

The applicant sought to invalidate powers of attorney (POAs) executed by Janina Jackiewicz in 2021, which appointed the respondent, Yolanta Zawadzinski, as attorney.

The applicant also sought to confirm the validity of earlier 2019 POAs, which appointed the applicant.

The court found suspicious circumstances surrounding the 2021 POAs, including Ms. Jackiewicz's diminished capacity and the respondent's undue influence, supported by a capacity assessment report.

The court declared the 2021 POAs invalid and the 2019 POAs valid and operative.

The respondent was ordered to provide an accounting of Ms. Jackiewicz's property managed since October 2021.

This case involves a dispute among three siblings, Bill, Mary, and John, concerning the management of their 92-year-old mother, Alpida Vrantsidis', property and personal care.

Bill and Mary sought declarations regarding the validity and enforceability of the 1995 Powers of Attorney (POAs) and an order for John to account for $61,000 he received from their mother.

John, self-represented, brought a cross-application seeking to invalidate the POAs or remove Bill and Mary as attorneys.

The court dismissed John's request for an adjournment, declared the 1995 POAs valid and operative, confirmed Alpida Vrantsidis' incapacity to manage her property and personal care, and ordered John to account for the $61,000 under a resulting trust.

John's application to remove Bill and Mary or invalidate the POAs was dismissed due to lack of merit and evidence of misconduct.

The Litigation Administrator for the Estate of Rita Persaud brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement against Chabiraj Persaud, the deceased's son, concerning the sale of a residential property.

The Litigation Administrator alleged that Chabiraj breached the agreement by further encumbering the property, increasing existing charges, and improperly withdrawing funds for an unsecured line of credit from the sale proceeds.

The court found that Chabiraj breached the settlement agreement by taking out new mortgages/lines of credit and improperly deducting funds, awarding damages of $220,578.48 plus pre-judgment interest to the Estate.

The court declined to find a breach regarding a commercially unreasonable realtor commission due to lack of evidence and also denied the request for injunctive relief.

The respondent, Litigation Administrator for the Estate of Rita Persaud, successfully moved for an order declaring the applicant, Mohini Persaud, a vexatious litigant.

The court found a persistent pattern of vexatious proceedings and conduct across multiple court levels, including repeated issues, failure to comply with court directions, excessive communication, and non-payment of costs awards.

As a result, the applicant was barred from instituting further proceedings in Ontario courts without leave and required leave to continue her current application.

The applicants, a beneficiary and a legatee, sought to enforce a 2010 settlement agreement and obtain payment of a legacy from an estate.

The former estate trustee had delayed the administration of the estate and the transfer of a property for over a decade.

The court ordered the payment of the $20,000 legacy with 2% interest, reimbursed the former trustee for proven property expenses, denied the beneficiary's claim for lost rental income, and awarded costs to the applicants payable from the estate.