Bernadette Dietrich

The moving party, a nephew of the deceased, brought a motion for directions to challenge the deceased's 2012 Will, which excluded him as a beneficiary.

He sought documentary discovery, including medical and financial records, alleging the deceased lacked testamentary capacity and was unduly influenced by the responding party.

The court found that the moving party had a financial interest in the estate and met the minimal evidentiary threshold required to call the validity of the will into question.

The motion was granted, and an order for the production of the solicitor's file, medical records, and financial records was issued.

The applicant, the separated spouse of the deceased, brought a motion for production of documents, repayment of legal fees to the estate, and interim support in the context of a dependant's relief application.

The deceased had left his entire estate to his sister, the respondent.

The court ordered the respondent to produce the required documents and repay $9,999.91 to the estate, finding she was in a conflict of interest by using estate funds to defend the claim in her personal capacity.

The court also found the applicant met the test for interim support and awarded her a lump sum of $30,000.

The applicants challenged the authority of the respondent corporation's de facto Chief Operating Officer to retain legal counsel to represent the corporation in an oppression and receivership application.

The court found that although the COO was not formally appointed in accordance with the shareholders agreement, she was informally appointed by the late controlling director in good faith.

The court held that as the de facto COO, she had the authority to appoint counsel to represent the corporation's interests.

The 89-year-old applicant widow moved into an assisted-living facility and sought interim dependant's support from her late husband's estate under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The deceased's will provided her a life interest in a residence, but did not contemplate her need for assisted living.

The respondent residual beneficiary opposed the motion, citing a marriage contract waiver.

The court granted interim support of $4,635 per month from the estate, finding the applicant was a dependant and the deceased's intention was to provide for her accommodation expenses.

The moving party sought an interim distribution of 25 percent of funds held in trust from the sale of the deceased's residence, pending the resolution of a will challenge.

The funds were held pursuant to a consent order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no grounds to vary the consent order and concluding that an interim distribution was premature as the estate's liabilities were unknown and an earlier will might exist.

The moving parties, trustees of a family trust, sought to consolidate or temporarily stay an application for a passing of accounts and declarations of breach of fiduciary duty, pending the outcome of a complex related action concerning the ownership of family businesses.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the two proceedings did not share common questions of fact or law, and that delaying the application would prejudice the beneficiaries' right to a timely accounting and preservation of trust assets.

The court-appointed Receiver brought a motion to approve a marketing and sale process by tender for undeveloped commercial property.

The respondent debtor brought a competing motion seeking an order directing the Receiver to accept a specific offer from its financial backer.

The court approved the Receiver's proposed process, finding it fair, transparent, and commercially reasonable, and dismissed the debtor's motion, noting the proposed process would optimize the chances of securing the best possible price for all stakeholders.

The applicant, a shareholder, sought reimbursement from the corporation for expenses incurred in requisitioning, calling, and holding a shareholders meeting under the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

The corporation resisted, arguing the applicant did not act in good faith and did not technically "hold" the meeting.

The court found the applicant acted in good faith and was entitled to reimbursement, rejecting the corporation's technical argument regarding holding the meeting.

The court then determined the reasonable quantum of expenses, distinguishing between legal fees and disbursements and setting time limits for recoverable expenses, ultimately awarding the applicant USD$117,047.38.

The applicant vendor brought a motion for leave to obtain a writ of possession for an industrial property after the respondent purchaser breached a settlement agreement by failing to pay municipal taxes on time.

The respondent cured the breach by paying the tax arrears before the hearing and sought relief from forfeiture.

The court applied the three-part test for relief from forfeiture, noting the applicant's own failure to fulfill environmental remediation obligations under the agreement.

Finding that forfeiture of a multi-million dollar property for a cured tax default would be disproportionate, the court granted relief from forfeiture and dismissed the motion.

The plaintiff, Canada Bread, sued the defendants (First Gulf and Mallot Creek) for negligence and breach of contract related to a bakery's design and construction.

An initial action was settled, and a release was executed for "known" claims.

Before the release, a fire occurred at the bakery.

Canada Bread's insurer was aware of First Gulf's potential liability for the fire, but Canada Bread itself was not.

Canada Bread subsequently commenced a second action for fire-related damages.

First Gulf brought a summary judgment motion before an arbitrator, arguing the release barred the second action.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding the release only covered "known" claims and that Canada Bread was unaware of First Gulf's fire-related liability at the time of the release.

First Gulf appealed this decision to the Superior Court.

The Superior Court granted leave to appeal on questions of law but ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the arbitrator's decision as reasonable.

The applicants, Saniia Agisheva and Andrii Grynyshyn (Grynyshyn shareholders), sought leave to bring a derivative action on behalf of Sunbex Corporation against the respondents, Dmitri Petrov, Natalia Lobanova, Alex Miadelets, Ventus Consulting Inc., and Midstream Infrastructure Protection Technologies Inc. (Petrov shareholders), alleging misappropriation of corporate opportunities.

The respondents brought a cross-application for leave to bring a derivative action against the Grynyshyn shareholders for alleged warranty claims and misappropriation of funds.

The court granted the Grynyshyn shareholders' application, finding they met the four-part test for leave to commence a derivative action, demonstrating good faith and an arguable case in the corporation's interest.

The respondents' cross-application was dismissed, as their claims were found to be de minimis or more akin to a personal contractual dispute, and not in the best interests of the corporation.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an interlocutory Mareva injunction to freeze $200,000 from a property sale, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty by the responding parties.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs, as shareholders, lacked standing to claim directly for corporate losses.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case of fraudulent misrepresentation or breach of fiduciary duty, as they could not prove direct inducement, reliance, or specific losses.

The court also found no evidence of irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction, nor sufficient evidence of asset dissipation.

The applicants challenged the validity of Fedele Silano's last will and testament, alleging lack of knowledge and approval of its contents and suspicious circumstances surrounding its preparation.

The will significantly altered the distribution of assets compared to an earlier holograph will, primarily by leaving the family residence and a cottage outright to the respondent, Pasquale Silano, rather than a life interest with a gift over to grandchildren.

The court found that the respondent successfully dispelled all alleged suspicious circumstances and that the applicants failed to prove that the testator lacked knowledge of or approval for the will's contents.

The court concluded that the will was valid and could be admitted to probate.

Elizabeth Dobis, as executrix and sole beneficiary of her late husband's estate, sought possession and control of a rental property and an accounting from her son, Mark Dobis, who had been managing the property and diverting rents.

Mark Dobis opposed, claiming a life interest based on an invalid "Devise" and a moral obligation.

The court granted Elizabeth Dobis possession and control, ordered Mark Dobis to account for and remit diverted funds, and issued permanent injunctive relief against his interference, finding he had no legal or equitable claim to the property.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking to disqualify Minden Gross LLP as counsel for the corporate defendant Synoptic Medical Assessments Inc. (SMAI) due to an alleged conflict of interest involving lawyer A. Irvin Schein.

The plaintiffs asserted that Mr. Schein had a prior solicitor-client relationship with plaintiff Mina Bechai and that his continued representation of SMAI, while also acting for Dr. Hanna (a director and shareholder of SMAI and an adverse party in a shareholder dispute), created a disqualifying conflict.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prior solicitor-client relationship between Bechai and Schein, or that any confidential information relevant to the current matter was exchanged.

The court also found no evidentiary support for other alleged conflicts and affirmed the director's right to instruct corporate counsel.

Mark Dobis brought a motion for an interim interlocutory injunction to restrain Elizabeth Dobis, personally and as Estate Trustee, from dealing with a property at 88 Overton Crescent, and for an order granting leave to register a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against the property.

Mark Dobis claimed a life interest in the property and sought dependant's support from his late father's estate.

The court applied the three-part test for injunctions and the prerequisites for a CPL.

The court found that Mark Dobis did not raise a serious question to be tried regarding his dependant status or a reasonable claim to an interest in the property, nor would he suffer irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured Elizabeth Dobis.

Both the motion for injunction and the CPL were dismissed.

Following a motion for directions where the court ordered that the corporate respondent not pay the personal respondents' legal fees for their appeal of a winding-up order, the court determined costs.

The applicant sought costs of $4,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondents failed to provide written submissions.

The court awarded the requested $4,500 to the applicant, ordering that it be paid jointly and severally by the personal respondents, as their conduct in breaching a stay order necessitated the motion.

The applicants, former owners of CryptoGlobal, sought the appointment of an independent inspector to investigate HyperBlock Inc. following an amalgamation.

They alleged oppressive conduct, conflict of interest by HyperBlock's CEO (Sean Walsh) in the acquisition of Project Spokane assets, overvaluation, and a significant post-closing decline in HyperBlock's value not fully explained by market forces.

The court found a prima facie case of oppression and an "index of suspicion" warranting an investigation, citing issues like cash flow irregularities, resignations of financial officers, lack of transparency, and potential conflicts of interest among management and directors.

The court ordered the appointment of BDO Canada Limited as an inspector.

The respondents brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement against the applicant, who had initially sought an interest in a property held by a family trust.

The applicant argued that no binding agreement was reached due to a lack of agreement on the specific terms of a mutual release, which he considered an essential term, and that he entered the agreement under duress.

The court applied contract law principles and Rule 49.09, finding that a mutual intention to settle existed and all essential terms were agreed upon.

It held that the specific wording of a release is not a material term unless explicitly made conditional, and rejected the duress claim due to a lack of credible evidence.

The settlement was enforced, and the applicant's original application was dismissed.

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.