Colin Pendrith

Following a two‑day motion concerning interim relief in an estate-related civil action, both parties sought costs after investing substantial legal resources in preparing and arguing the motion.

The court determined that most of the legal work related to investigating the merits of the underlying claims and would be more appropriately treated as costs in the cause.

However, the moving party achieved limited success by obtaining interim recovery of personal property and a certificate of pending litigation relating to land.

The court therefore awarded modest partial costs for those aspects of the motion while declining to award the broader costs sought by either side.

Additional submissions regarding an alleged lien on the vehicle were refused, and security in the amount of $35,000 was ordered to be paid into court pending resolution of the action.

The plaintiff brought a motion in a dependant’s relief action under the Succession Law Reform Act seeking interim support from the deceased’s estate, interim possession of a residence, and possession of a motor vehicle allegedly gifted inter vivos by the deceased.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie entitlement to support because the evidence did not demonstrate cohabitation for three years or otherwise satisfy the definition of “spouse” under the Act, nor did she establish financial need.

Interim possession of the residence was also refused because the property was owned by a family trust and there was no statutory or injunctive basis to grant exclusive possession.

However, the plaintiff established a strong prima facie case that the deceased gifted her a BMW vehicle, supported by a signed transfer and recorded statements.

The court ordered interim preservation of the vehicle and permitted the plaintiff to elect between possession with security, estate possession with security, or sale with proceeds paid into court.

A dispute arose during a passing of accounts over whether funds held in joint bank accounts between a deceased parent and two adult children formed part of the estate.

The accounts were opened with rights of survivorship and funded exclusively by the deceased.

Applying the principles in Pecore v. Pecore, the court considered evidence of intention, bank documentation, control of funds, tax treatment, and surrounding circumstances.

The court held that the presumption of resulting trust was rebutted because the deceased intended to gift the beneficial interest in the joint accounts inter vivos.

The evidence further supported that the surviving joint account holders were to distribute the funds equally among all siblings, either as direct beneficiaries or through a bare trust.

The funds therefore did not form part of the estate.

The Divisional Court issued an addendum to its initial endorsement to correct factual errors in paragraph 4 regarding bypass compensation and stranded transmission connection facilities.

The appellants appealed a procedural decision of the Ontario Energy Board regarding their application to declare bypass compensation provisions of the Transmission System Code ultra vires.

The Board had determined the application was not a standalone application but was linked to an earlier Leave to Construct decision, and gave the appellants three procedural options to proceed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was interlocutory and discretionary, and raised no true question of law or jurisdiction.