Bernadette Dietrich

The applicant, as Estate Trustee, sought a declaration that a Henson trust (the Jasmine Trust) created by the respondent lawyer for the benefit of one of the estate beneficiaries was void.

The lawyer had prepared the trust documents naming the Estate as settlor and his own professional corporation as trustee, and transferred estate property to it without the applicant's knowledge or intention.

The court found the trust void and of no force and effect due to a lack of certainty of intention, certainty of objects, and the professional corporation's lack of capacity to act as a trustee.

The court ordered the trust assets, including a condominium, to be conveyed back to the Estate and awarded full indemnity costs against the respondents due to the lawyer's egregious conduct.

The applicant son brought a motion within a guardianship application to determine his 91-year-old father's capacity to instruct counsel, and to enforce previous orders regarding financial disclosure and access visits.

The father, who suffers from aphasia, had been assessed by multiple capacity assessors.

The court found the father had capacity to instruct counsel regarding his personal care and residence, but lacked capacity to instruct on property matters due to his inability to understand a disputed $280,000 mortgage.

The court directed the Public Guardian and Trustee to arrange section 3 counsel for the father, ordered the respondent siblings to provide the long-overdue accounting, and enforced the applicant's access visits, awarding substantial indemnity costs against the respondent siblings for their reprehensible conduct in delaying the proceedings.

The plaintiffs and defendants were equal shareholders in two closely held corporations that owned and operated gas stations and a driving range.

Following a breakdown in their relationship and a deadlock over succession planning and the division of corporate assets, both parties alleged oppressive conduct against the other.

The court found that both shareholders had engaged in conduct that unfairly disregarded the other's interests.

Given the irreparable breakdown of trust and the deadlock, the court ordered the winding up and liquidation of the companies by a court-appointed receiver.

The court dismissed the claims of the plaintiff's wife, finding she was not a shareholder or officer, but awarded the plaintiff $250,000 in compensation for his historical management of the companies.

The plaintiffs and the defendant Robert Langlois entered into a joint venture to operate a powder-coating business, ACS.

Mr. Langlois licensed his powder-coating know-how and expertise to ACS.

Before ACS generated any revenue, Mr. Langlois secretly formed a competing business, PCS, with the defendants Jeffrey Sugar and Gary Sugar.

Mr. Langlois diverted corporate opportunities, including a lucrative powder-coating contract, to PCS and later to VML.

The plaintiffs sued for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and knowing assistance.

The court found that Mr. Langlois breached the Licence Agreement and his fiduciary duties by misappropriating corporate opportunities.

The court also found that Jeffrey Sugar and Gary Sugar knowingly assisted in these breaches.

The court ordered disgorgement of profits and repayment of loans and expenses, holding the defendants jointly and severally liable.

The applicant estate trustee brought a motion for an order appointing section 3 counsel under the Substitute Decisions Act for her father.

The respondents opposed the motion, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the underlying proceeding was not brought under the Substitute Decisions Act.

The court agreed with the respondents and dismissed the motion, holding that the plain wording of section 3(1) and relevant case law require the underlying proceeding to be under the Substitute Decisions Act for the court to have jurisdiction to appoint such counsel.

The moving parties (respondents in the main action) sought to enforce a settlement agreement or have it declared void ab initio, arguing the responding parties (applicants in the main action) failed to fulfill their obligation to withdraw criminal proceedings in Iran and remove Interpol Red Notices.

The court interpreted the agreement using the principles from Sattva, finding the responding parties only agreed to request the withdrawal and cooperate, as they lacked the authority to compel the independent Iranian Prosecutor or Interpol.

The court rejected expert evidence claiming the responding parties were Iranian government-controlled entities capable of commanding such actions.

The motion was dismissed, and the responding parties were awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicants sought the release of funds held in trust, arguing that a writ of execution obtained by the respondent against a bare trustee did not attach to the property.

The respondent argued that the bare trustee was also acting as an agent for the applicants, making them liable as principals for her unpaid commissions.

The court found that while an agency relationship did exist, the respondent was precluded from recovering against the principals because she had already obtained judgment against the agent, and the limitation period to sue the principals had expired.

The funds were ordered released to the applicants.

In a will challenge application, the parties brought cross-motions regarding the appointment of an Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL).

The applicants sought to appoint a professional trust company, while the respondent executor named in the impugned will sought to be appointed himself.

The court found that an ETDL was necessary and appointed the respondent executor, noting he had no beneficial interest in the estate, was neutral, and had already been managing the estate's assets.

The court dismissed the applicants' motion to appoint a limited partnership as ETDL, as it was not legally authorized to act in that capacity.

The court also granted directions for an accounting, production of medical records, and interim custody of certain chattels.

This case involves two consolidated applications concerning the estate of Veronica Bishop.

Carolyn Mae Reeves sought interpretation of the will regarding executor appointments and asset vesting, and an accounting from Anne Marie Veronica Inglis, a de facto executor.

Margaret Bishop, the deceased's daughter, sought dependant's relief, an accounting, and the removal of Anne Marie as executor.

The court determined that Anne Marie and Carolyn are the current executors.

It clarified that non-residence assets vested at the deceased's death, while residence proceeds vested upon sale.

The court ordered Anne Marie to provide a formal accounting.

Margaret was found to be a dependant and awarded $725,000 from her trust, inclusive of her share of the residue and dependant's support, subject to Anne Marie's proven expenses.

The decision on Anne Marie's removal as executor was adjourned pending the accounting.

The Landlord sought leave to appeal an arbitration award concerning the rent reset for a 99-year ground lease, and alternatively, to set aside the award for excess of jurisdiction.

The arbitration tribunal had valued the "Demised Premises" at $63.3 million, while the Landlord argued for $95 million.

The court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Majority's interpretation of the lease or its valuation mandate.

The court also dismissed the application to set aside the award, holding that the Landlord's arguments were an attempt to re-litigate the merits under the guise of a jurisdictional challenge.

The applicants sought an order declaring that a writ of execution obtained by the respondent against Stonebrook Inc. did not attach to real property registered in Stonebrook Inc.'s name.

The respondent had obtained the writ to enforce a judgment for unpaid commissions.

The court found that Stonebrook Inc. held the property merely as a bare trustee for the applicants (the beneficial owners) and had no independent discretion or beneficial interest in the property.

Consequently, under section 9(1) of the Execution Act, the writ could not attach to the property.

However, the court deferred releasing funds held in trust to allow the respondent an opportunity to argue that the bare trustee acted as an agent for the beneficial owners.

The Public Guardian and Trustee, acting as litigation guardian for an incapable person, brought a summary judgment motion against the incapable person's former attorney for property.

The attorney had transferred the incapable person's unencumbered residential property to himself in trust for his daughter for no consideration, subsequently sold it, and misappropriated funds from her bank accounts.

The court found the attorney breached his fiduciary duties and ordered him to pay damages of $2,550,000 for the property sale and $150,015 for the misappropriated funds, plus full indemnity costs.

The applicant sought to be appointed as the succeeding Estate Trustee without a Will for the deceased's estate and requested a Benjamin Order declaring her late father and aunt as the deceased's closest next of kin.

The court reviewed the genealogical and documentary evidence presented by the applicant to establish that her grandmother was the sister of the deceased's mother.

The court found the evidence inconsistent, unreliable, and insufficient to prove the claimed kinship.

Consequently, the court dismissed the application, declined to issue the Benjamin Order as premature, and ordered the applicant's late father's estate to pass accounts and pay the estate funds into court.

The applicants, daughters of the respondent, sought a declaration that their father's transfer of his interest in a $4.3 million mortgage to a family trust was a valid gift.

The father argued he lacked donative intent, believing he controlled and was a beneficiary of the trust, and alternatively claimed his daughters unduly influenced him.

The court found the father had donative intent, understanding the estate freeze and trust terms after receiving independent legal and accounting advice.

The court also found no undue influence, as the father acted freely and the daughters were not in a position to dominate his will.

The transfer was upheld as a valid gift.

The respondents in a will challenge brought a motion for the production of the applicant's psychiatric records, arguing the records might contain evidence supporting their limitation period defence.

The court dismissed the motion, applying the Ryan test for privilege.

The court found the records were highly confidential, of questionable relevance, and that the harm to the applicant's mental health and ongoing psychiatric treatment outweighed any potential benefit to the litigation.

The applicant brought a motion for a penalty after the respondent estate trustee failed to purge her contempt for ignoring a court order to file and pass her accounts.

The respondent had evaded service and ignored multiple court orders for over four and a half years.

The court found no mitigating factors and ordered the respondent to pay a $20,000 fine within 60 days, failing which she would serve a seven-day jail sentence.

The applicant sought an order declaring a holograph codicil to be a valid testamentary document.

The deceased had written the codicil entirely in her own hand and wrote her name in the attestation clause, but left blanks for the date and the executor's name.

The court found that while the document was wholly handwritten, the deceased did not intend her handwritten name in the attestation clause to serve as her signature to give legal effect to the document.

The application was dismissed, and the codicil was not admitted to probate.

The moving party defendant sought summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims of fraudulent conveyance and conspiracy.

The plaintiff alleged her former husband fraudulently conveyed shares in a company holding real property to his brother (the moving party) to defeat her family law judgment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly regarding the relationships among the defendants, credibility, and whether the ten-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act applied to the fraudulent conveyance claim.

The applicant son brought a motion within an application regarding his elderly mother's capacity and the management of her property by his sister.

The mother had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, but the sister disputed the diagnosis and procured new powers of attorney in her favour.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the mother was incapable of managing her property and personal care, noting flaws in previous capacity assessments arranged by the sister.

The court ordered a comprehensive capacity assessment, a functional assessment, and conditionally ordered the sister to pass her accounts.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce personal guarantees executed by the respondents, a husband and wife who were directors of the debtor corporation.

The husband did not oppose the motion.

The wife argued she was released from her guarantee due to an undisclosed material change in the principal amount of the indebtedness, lack of independent legal advice, and that the applicant had released her through its conduct during restructuring negotiations.

The court found that the guarantee explicitly allowed for changes in the amount of obligations, the wife was a sophisticated business owner who did not require independent legal advice, and the applicant had not provided an express written waiver as required by the guarantee.

The motion was granted and both respondents were found liable.