Calvin Hancock

Following a successful application to remove the respondents as trustees of a family trust, the applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis payable by the trustees personally.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs payable by the trustees personally, finding their conduct unreasonable but not reprehensible.

The balance of the applicant's full indemnity costs was ordered to be paid from the family trust.

The trustees were denied indemnification from the estate for their own costs due to their unreasonable conduct.

The applicant sought the removal of the respondents as trustees of a family trust, alleging mismanagement, failure to account, and bad faith.

The trustees had made over $3 million in undocumented, unsecured loans to themselves and their children, failed to pass accounts for over a decade, and attempted to dictate the terms of the applicant's will in exchange for continuing his monthly trust payments.

The court found that the trustees' conduct was so unreasonable that no honest or fair-dealing trustee would have acted in that way, and that they failed to act impartially despite having absolute discretion.

The application was granted, the trustees were removed, and an institutional trustee was appointed in their place.

The applicant brought a motion to strike an affidavit sworn by his mother, one of the respondent trustees, on the basis that she was not produced for cross-examination due to concerns about her capacity.

The applicant argued that admitting the affidavit would prejudice the fair hearing of his application to remove the trustees and would be an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant had not availed himself of opportunities to cross-examine the affiant with accommodations or to seek court directions earlier.

The court held that the affidavit should be admitted, with the lack of cross-examination going to the weight of the evidence to be determined at the hearing.

The plaintiffs sold a retirement home and alleged that their lawyer and the purchaser's lawyer failed to ensure $109,000 was held in trust for tax liabilities.

The defendant lawyers moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were statute-barred.

The court granted the motions, finding the plaintiffs failed to rebut the presumption of discoverability and had knowledge of the material facts more than two years before commencing the action.

The court also dismissed the fraudulent misrepresentation claim due to a lack of evidence.

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff's subrogated claim for delay under Rule 24.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as more than five years had passed since the action was commenced.

The plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, which included failing to answer undertakings for over three years.

Furthermore, the court found the defendants would suffer non-compensable prejudice because the oil tank, which was central to determining the cause of the leak, had been destroyed.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed.

The defendant lawyer brought a requisition under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the plaintiff's action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff's claim arose from an aborted real estate transaction and alleged that the defendant lawyer was involved in the issuance of a municipal order to comply.

The court found that the defendant lawyer owed no duty of care to the plaintiff vendor and that the action appeared frivolous on its face.

The court ordered a stay of the proceeding and directed the Registrar to issue a notice to the plaintiff that the court is considering dismissing the action.

The plaintiffs sued the lawyer who represented the purchaser in a share sale, alleging he falsely stated that funds had been deposited in a trust account.

The lawyer and his firm moved to strike the claims against them.

The court struck the claim for negligent misrepresentation, finding that a lawyer owes no duty of care to an opposing party who is represented by their own counsel.

However, the court refused to strike the claim for intentional misrepresentation, finding the plaintiffs had pleaded all necessary elements.

The court also declined to strike a cross-claim for contribution by a co-defendant bank.