Christopher R. Durdan

In an estates motion between siblings who were co-estate trustees, the applicant sought an order compelling the respondent to pass formal accounts for the period she acted under a power of attorney for property and to produce bank records for several accounts in which she held an interest.

The court held that the respondent was a fiduciary under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 and had a strict obligation to keep accounts, but found that the modest estate did not warrant a formal passing of accounts.

Applying the discretionary approach described in McAllister Estate, the court concluded that disclosure of financial records was sufficient to address the concerns raised about management of the deceased's affairs.

The motion was therefore dismissed in part and granted in part, with production ordered within 90 days and costs reserved.

The plaintiff drywall contractor brought a construction lien action against the defendant owner/developer for the unpaid balance of a contract for a residential condominium project.

The defendant claimed set-off for allegedly incomplete and deficient work, and argued the lien was registered out of time.

The court interpreted the contract in favour of the plaintiff regarding the scope of work for corridor ceilings, balcony ceilings, and bathtub walls.

The court found only minor deficiencies, allowing a $3,000 set-off against the plaintiff's claim.

The court also held that the construction lien was registered within the 45-day statutory period and was valid.

Judgment was granted to the plaintiff for $140,946.44.

The tenant applied for a declaration that it had validly exercised an option to purchase commercial property under a lease agreement and sought specific performance compelling the landlord to sell the property at an appraised value.

The landlord opposed and brought a cross‑application alleging the tenant breached the lease by failing to reimburse property taxes and arguing the appraisal used to determine the purchase price was unfair and obtained without proper input.

The court held that the lease clearly required the purchase price to be determined by a specific named appraiser and that the resulting appraisal was valid and unbiased.

The court also interpreted the lease to place responsibility for realty taxes on the landlord, rejecting the landlord’s claim for reimbursement.

The tenant had properly exercised the option to purchase and was entitled to specific performance of the sale at the appraised value.

The plaintiff and defendant purchased a residence as tenants in common and executed a written agreement requiring equal sharing of expenses and providing that if one party moved out, that party would rent their share.

After the defendant moved out and ceased contributing to expenses, the plaintiff continued paying the mortgage and completed renovations to the property.

The defendant counterclaimed for reimbursement of expenses and alleged dispossession.

The court found the written agreement governed the parties’ obligations and held the defendant abandoned the property and failed to rent his share as required.

Judgment was granted to the plaintiff for unpaid expenses, with adjustments for rental income received.

The appellant appealed a decision interpreting a varied trust deed.

The trust had been converted into a percentage trust (unitrust) to allow the trustee to invest for maximum returns.

Due to market downturns, the trustee had to sell capital assets to meet the mandatory minimum percentage distributions to the income beneficiaries, depleting the trust's capital.

The application judge found that the trust deed's terms made the percentage payments mandatory and ousted the trustee's duty to maintain an even hand between income and capital beneficiaries regarding distributions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the application judge correctly interpreted the trust deed based on its clear language and the surrounding factual matrix, including the prior court approval and tax rulings.

The plaintiff lender brought a motion for summary judgment to recover funds advanced under a mortgage secured against commercial property.

The defendants argued they did not understand the transaction and asserted additional undocumented cash payments and disputes regarding credits for merchandise.

The court found the documentary record clear that $1,200,000 had been advanced with independent legal advice and that the mortgage was properly registered.

Summary judgment was granted for the principal amount with contractual prejudgment interest, and a writ of possession was ordered.

Two discrete issues relating to the value of merchandise credited against the mortgage and the amount of documented cash interest payments were referred to a summary trial.