Cassandra Martino

This appeal concerns the applicable limitation period for an equitable trust claim against a deceased's estate.

The respondent, a common-law spouse, brought a claim for constructive trust and unjust enrichment against the estate more than four years after the deceased's death.

The motion judge applied a ten-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act (RPLA).

The Court of Appeal, applying a holistic statutory interpretation approach, determined that the two-year limitation period under section 38(3) of the Trustee Act applies to equitable trust claims against estates, as "wrong" in section 38(2) encompasses unjust enrichment.

The Court found that the longer RPLA period does not apply to general estate claims, emphasizing the legislative policy for expeditious estate administration.

Consequently, the respondent's equitable trust claim was statute-barred and dismissed.

This decision addresses costs following the settlement of an estate application.

The applicant sought to remove the estate trustee due to alleged delays and misconduct.

While the substantive issues, including the trustee's removal, were settled, the parties reserved the issue of costs.

The court applied civil litigation costs principles to the estate matter, finding that the estate trustee's initial inactivity necessitated the application.

The applicant was awarded partial costs from the estate trustee's share of the estate, and the estate trustee was granted partial indemnification for costs incurred in reasonably advancing the estate administration after the application was brought.

The other respondent was ordered to bear their own costs.

The applicant, Robert Miller, in his capacity as both the deceased's spouse and Estate Trustee, sought an order to transfer a property (175 Ridge Road West) to himself, relying on a provision in the deceased's will (Paragraph XI) that allowed the Estate Trustee to allocate assets to satisfy Family Law Act (FLA) claims.

The respondents, the deceased's siblings and beneficiaries of the property, argued that the applicant had not elected under the FLA and was therefore deemed to be taking under the will, rendering Paragraph XI inapplicable.

They also asserted a conflict of interest.

The court agreed with the respondents, finding that Paragraph XI was not triggered as no FLA claim had been made and that the applicant was in a clear conflict of interest by attempting to transfer the property to himself.

However, the court granted the applicant a six-month extension to file an FLA claim, concluding that his prior inaction stemmed from a misunderstanding of the will's provisions and that he should have the opportunity to make an informed election.