Brendan Donovan

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 respondent brought a motion seeking to set aside a Registrar's Order to Continue, dismiss the application for delay, dismiss the application against the Estate of Nova Joseph Maille and Concentra Trust as Estate Trustee, and appoint an alternative Estate Trustee during litigation.

The motion was dismissed due to the absence of supporting evidence.

The respondent failed to file any affidavit in support of the motion and relied instead on privileged settlement materials and arguments protesting the contents of affidavits filed by other parties without evidentiary foundation.

The court found the motion ill-fated on its merits and ordered the respondent to pay costs to the applicants and the Estate.

This decision concerns the costs arising from protracted estate litigation over the administration and distribution of the estate of Maria Giuseppa Cosentino.

The court reviews the history of three related proceedings, the conduct of the parties and their counsel, and the reasonableness of legal fees claimed.

The court finds that much of the litigation was driven by sibling conflict and overreaching claims, particularly by Sam Cosentino, who acted as both lawyer and party.

The court fixes the costs payable from the estate, significantly reducing some claims, and authorizes the estate trustee during litigation to complete the administration and distribution of the estate.

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.

This is a costs decision following an unsuccessful three-week trial where Robert Mark Roe challenged his mother's will and inter vivos gifts.

The court dismissed both actions (Will Action and Gift Action).

The decision addresses the costs sought by Randall Scott Roe (an estate trustee and successful respondent) and Raymond Christopher Roe (another estate trustee).

The court fixed costs, ordering Mark Roe to pay Randall Scott Roe $330,000 in all-inclusive costs, the estate to cover $260,338.03 of Randall's litigation costs, and Randall to be personally responsible for the balance.

Raymond Christopher Roe was reimbursed $170,000 from the estate for his conciliatory approach.

The applicant daughter brought an application seeking a capacity assessment for her father, her appointment as his guardian of property and personal care, and the setting aside of a 2020 Power of Attorney in favour of her brother.

The respondent parents brought a cross-application seeking the return of their assets held jointly by the daughter and an accounting of her management of their finances.

The court dismissed the daughter's application, finding insufficient evidence to displace the father's presumption of capacity or to set aside the 2020 Power of Attorney, and noting her failure to file a guardianship plan.

The parents' application was granted in part, with the court ordering the daughter to return title to their properties, relinquish joint accounts, and provide an accounting from 2018 to 2020.

The court also ordered the brother to provide an annual accounting and directed the appointment of a third-party administrator to manage the sale of the parents' Canadian properties.

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 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.

The applicant challenged his mother's Will, which disinherited him, arguing she lacked testamentary capacity, suffered from insane delusions, and was unduly influenced by his brother.

The court found that while the Will was executed under suspicious circumstances, the respondents successfully proved the testator had testamentary capacity and was not operating under insane delusions.

The court held that the testator's reasons for disinheriting the applicant, though perhaps unreasonable or based on misunderstandings, were grounded in actual events and did not amount to insane delusions.

The applicant also failed to prove undue influence.

The application and related action were dismissed.

The applicants brought a motion seeking a finding that the respondents, Hanna Gajek and Katarzyna Krol, failed to comply with two prior court orders requiring disclosure of the assets and liabilities of the late Marek Krol's estate.

The court found that Katarzyna Krol had satisfied her disclosure obligations to the best of her ability, as she had no knowledge or possession of relevant documents.

However, the court found that Hanna Gajek had not fully complied with the orders, particularly regarding documents likely kept in a safe and details of joint bank accounts.

The motion was dismissed against Katarzyna Krol and allowed in part against the Estate of Hanna Gajek, with directions for further disclosure.

The defendants moved to stay or dismiss the portion of the action seeking relief regarding the transfer of land in Guyana by the deceased to the defendants.

The defendants argued lack of jurisdiction simpliciter, forum non conveniens, and improper service outside Ontario.

The court found it had jurisdiction simpliciter based on the in personam exception for equitable claims, as the plaintiffs alleged undue influence.

The court declined to apply forum non conveniens, noting the parties and key connections were in Ontario or New Jersey, not Guyana.

The court also found service outside Ontario was valid under Rule 17.02(i).

The motion was dismissed.

This decision addresses a costs motion arising from two guardianship applications that became moot upon the death of the incapable person.

The applicant sister and respondent brother, who were in a bitter dispute over their late father's guardianship, sought costs from each other.

The court found that the applicant was motivated by her father's best interests and did not act unreasonably to cause unnecessary costs, thus dismissing the respondent's claim for substantial indemnity costs against her.

However, the court also found no principled basis to award the applicant her costs, noting that neither party was entirely blameless and the underlying issues were not judicially determined.

Ultimately, no costs were awarded to either party.

The applicant brought a motion seeking deductions from the respondent's share of their late father's estate, alleging the respondent financially enriched herself while acting as attorney for property.

The applicant also sought an order for the distribution of disputed chattels.

The court reviewed the respondent's informal accounting and ordered a deduction of $10,764.52 from her share of the estate for unaccounted withdrawals and inappropriate expenses.

The court dismissed the applicant's request for the disputed chattels, instead directing the estate trustee to sell them and divide the proceeds equally between the siblings.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) applied for an order requiring Andrew Willis to pass accounts for his mother, Ruth Ilene Willis, from January 1, 2015, and to replace him as interim Guardian of Property.

Andrew Willis, acting under a Continuing Power of Attorney for Property since May 2, 2018, consented to the PGT becoming guardian after the sale of his mother's home, and sought to limit the accounting period to his appointment date.

The court found Andrew Willis acted in a fiduciary capacity since at least 2015 and ordered him to provide detailed explanations for financial transactions from January 1, 2015, and a formal passing of accounts from May 2, 2018, to July 31, 2020.

The court also ordered the PGT to be appointed temporary Guardian of Property for Mrs. Willis as of August 1, 2020, regardless of the home's sale, citing Andrew's conflict of interest and neglect of his mother's welfare.

Raymon DeRanney died intestate.

Fritzie Deleon and her daughter Caseylynn Deleon brought an application for dependant's relief from his estate.

Fritzie's claim was abandoned.

The court found that Caseylynn, though not a biological child, was a "dependant" under the Succession Law Reform Act because the deceased had demonstrated a settled intention to treat her as a child of his family, primarily through providing shelter and significant financial support for over 15 years.

The court awarded Caseylynn $40,955 for her post-secondary education, rejecting her claim for an equal share of the estate with the deceased's biological daughter, Sonya, due to insufficient evidence of equal treatment intention and Caseylynn's own financial disclosure deficiencies.

The court also addressed costs for the abandoned claim.

The appellants, estate trustees of the testator's estate, appealed the trial judge's finding that the testator lacked testamentary capacity when executing two wills dated August 16, 2010 and September 8, 2010.

The trial judge found the testator was unaware of the nature and extent of his assets, did not remember persons he might be expected to benefit, and did not understand claims that could be made by excluded persons.

The appellants also sought leave to appeal the costs award, which required the estate trustees personally to pay costs rather than having them borne by the estate.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable errors of fact and upheld the trial judge's findings on capacity and costs.

This motion for supplemental reasons arose from a prior trial where neither party was entirely successful.

Pingyuan Zhao sought judgment for outstanding loans from Pingbo Zhao, repayment of improperly retained cash, and an order for compulsory transfer of Pingbo Zhao's shares in the 51.ca Corporations based on a valuation date of August 28, 2010.

The court granted judgment for the loans (net $81,093.90 plus pre-judgment interest) and repayment of cash ($21,799.54 plus pre-judgment interest), finding Pingbo Zhao liable for these amounts.

However, the court denied the request for a compulsory share transfer, concluding that the conditions for a "just and equitable" winding-up order under section 207(1)(b)(iv) of the OBCA were not met, particularly regarding the proposed valuation date and the lack of agreement between the parties on the relief sought.

No costs were awarded for the motion.

The plaintiff, Gregory Eugene Pichler, brought an action for defamation against the defendant, Mysti Rae Meadows, seeking general, aggravated, punitive, and exemplary damages, as well as injunctive relief.

The defendant denied defamation, asserting the truth of her online statements.

The court found the statements defamatory, as the defendant failed to prove their truth or justify them.

General damages of $5,000 were awarded to the plaintiff.

However, the court declined to award aggravated, punitive, or exemplary damages, and refused injunctive relief, noting the defendant had removed the statements and had no intention of repeating them, and that a blanket prior restraint on freedom of expression was not warranted.

This costs endorsement followed a judgment where two wills were declared invalid, resulting in an intestacy where the plaintiff, Star Sweetnam, inherited the entire estate.

Sweetnam sought substantial indemnity costs, while the defendant estate trustees, Dianne Lesage and Terry Dooley, sought their own costs from the estate.

The court applied the modern "loser pays" principle in estate litigation, finding that the estate trustees acted unreasonably by rejecting two settlement offers from Sweetnam, particularly an early, modest offer.

The court also found Lesage's conduct adversarial and her claimed costs excessive.

Sweetnam's costs were fixed at $311,679.56 (after a 20% reduction for time spent on moot issues).

The court ordered Lesage and Dooley to pay Sweetnam's costs jointly and severally and denied their claims for costs from the estate, preventing Sweetnam from effectively paying the unsuccessful parties' costs.

The plaintiff challenged the validity of two wills executed by her late father shortly after he was diagnosed with a terminal brain tumour.

The wills entirely disinherited the plaintiff and her children.

The court found that the testator lacked testamentary capacity when he executed both wills, as his cognitive functions were impaired by the tumour, poorly managed diabetes, and various medications, leading to insane delusions that affected his testamentary dispositions.

The wills were declared invalid.

The plaintiff's alternative claims for undue influence, proprietary estoppel, and dependant support under the Succession Law Reform Act were dismissed.