Cassandra Ball

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike claims related to a family business dispute, arguing they were barred by the ultimate 15-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that it was not plain and obvious that the claims could not succeed.

The judge emphasized that Rule 21 motions are for clear cases based on pleadings, not for fact-finding, especially when issues like the precise 'act or omission' triggering the limitation period and potential willful concealment are disputed and require evidence.

The court also rejected the argument that an oppression remedy is automatically precluded by corporate dissolution, noting that such remedies can include damages for past wrongs and that technical dissolution does not necessarily mean a cessation of operations or asset misappropriation.

The applicant sought interim dependants' support of $45,000 under the Succession Law Reform Act, claiming she was the common law spouse of the deceased.

The respondents, the deceased's daughters and family, disputed the relationship, providing conflicting evidence that the deceased did not cohabit with the applicant.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that due to the conflicting affidavit evidence and lack of independent corroboration, the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case or special circumstances justifying interim funding.

The applicants, Rebekka Weigand and Jonathan Weigand, sought leave to bring an application under the Succession Law Reform Act (SLRA) to claim adequate provision from their deceased father's estate, requiring an extension of the limitation period.

The respondent, the estate trustee and sole beneficiary, opposed the extension, arguing delay and prior payment of child support.

The court found that the limitation period for Rebekka, a minor at the time of death, had not expired until six months after she turned 18.

Despite conflicting evidence regarding alleged misrepresentations by the respondent that caused the delay and the prior payment of $30,702.27 for child support, the court granted the extension.

The court emphasized that the question of adequate provision and the impact of the prior payment were matters for the main application, and that denying leave due to alleged misrepresentation by the sole beneficiary would be unconscionable.

Two siblings brought competing motions regarding the guardianship of their mother, who suffers from Alzheimer's disease.

One sibling sought to be appointed as sole guardian for property and personal care, while the other sought to have the Public Guardian and Trustee appointed.

The court granted the motion to appoint the sibling as sole guardian, finding her suitable and noting that the Public Guardian and Trustee did not consent to act.

The competing motion was dismissed, as were requests for independent medical examinations and the lifting of nursing home visitation restrictions.