Charles Davidson

Following a decision upholding the validity of the deceased's will and dismissing a resulting trust application regarding joint bank accounts, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court found that public policy considerations for estate litigation did not apply, as the will was clear and unambiguous.

Applying the regular civil costs regime, the court allocated 80% of the costs to the will challenge and 20% to the resulting trust application.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis against the unsuccessful challengers, apportioned individually based on their conduct, with the balance to be paid by the estate.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a hearing scheduled for December 10, 2012, seeking to reschedule it after March 2013 due to the death of a close family member of the respondent's contact person and his resulting duties as executor.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, noting that the hearing had already been rescheduled once due to the respondent's counsel's illness, the new date was set on consent, and the circumstances did not constitute a sufficient basis to grant a further delay.

In an application alleging an unlawful lockout, the union sought the production of the employer's financial statements via a subpoena duces tecum.

The employer refused to produce the documents, arguing they were confidential and that it would only produce them if ordered by a court.

The Board ruled that the financial documents were arguably relevant because the employer had put its financial situation in issue as the reason for reducing employees' hours.

The Board directed that the documents be deposited with the Registrar, noting that confidentiality does not privilege documents from disclosure and that an implied undertaking protects against their use for collateral purposes.