Christopher Crisman-Cox

The appellant appealed from summary judgment dismissing negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims against a lawyer retained to draft a deceased relative’s will.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial because, even accepting the appellant’s version of events, the claim failed on duty, causation, and limitation grounds.

It declined to recognize a novel duty of care to a non-client who was not an intended beneficiary under the will, and found no ad hoc fiduciary undertaking.

The court further held that the alleged losses flowed from prior judicial findings concerning beneficial ownership of trust property, not from the respondent’s conduct, and that the claim was discoverable more than two years before it was commenced.

Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent.

The applicant, an estate trustee, brought an application to determine the ownership of joint bank accounts held by the deceased and the respondent, the other estate trustee.

The respondent argued the accounts passed to her by right of survivorship.

The court applied the presumption of resulting trust and found that the bank signature cards and financial services agreements were insufficient to rebut the presumption.

The accounts were declared estate assets, and the respondent was ordered to provide an updated accounting.

The parties were also directed to discuss the disposition of the deceased's ashes.

The applicant brought a motion seeking further financial disclosure from the respondent, specifically bank statements and cancelled cheques, in the context of a motion to change child support.

The applicant argued the disclosure was necessary to ascertain the respondent's true income, noting discrepancies between his hourly rate and reported income.

The court dismissed the motion for bank statements, finding the request disproportionate and akin to a fishing expedition, as the respondent was a unionized T4 employee with reasonable explanations for income fluctuations.

However, the court ordered the respondent to produce a more detailed employment letter.

The respondent, Colin Jones, moved to consolidate an estate application commenced in Toronto with a related application commenced in Guelph, and to transfer the Toronto application to Guelph.

The applicant, Brian Jones, opposed the transfer, arguing the matter should remain in Toronto to benefit from the Toronto Estates List's mandatory mediation and case management.

The court granted the motion to consolidate and transfer the proceedings to Guelph, finding that Guelph had a much stronger connection to the parties and the estate assets.

However, the court imposed a condition requiring the parties to attend mandatory mediation.

The applicant brought an unopposed motion to enforce a final order for lump sum spousal support and equalization against the respondent and his wholly-owned corporation.

The court dismissed the request to transfer funds from the respondent's locked-in retirement account (LIRA) because the LIRA was not in pay.

However, the court pierced the corporate veil, allowing the order to be enforced against the respondent's corporation, as the respondent had arranged for his employment income to be paid to the corporation to avoid his family law obligations.

The court also ordered that the lump sum support be enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.