Corey Wall

The applicant sought declarations regarding the interpretation of her late husband's holographic will.

The primary issue was whether a clause stating the applicant 'shall assume ownership' of the family home granted her full ownership or merely a life interest, given a subsequent clause leaving the equity to the respondents upon the applicant's death.

The court applied the armchair rule and considered admissible extrinsic evidence, concluding that the ordinary meaning of 'assume ownership' granted full ownership.

The subsequent clause was interpreted as a gift over that would only apply if the applicant had predeceased the testator.

This appeal concerns the interpretation of a will granting trustees absolute discretion to encroach on capital for the income beneficiary's comfort and well-being.

The primary issue was whether the trustees improperly considered extraneous factors in exercising their discretion.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge erred in characterizing the trustees' distrust of the beneficiary's living arrangement as extraneous, as due diligence was warranted.

However, the court upheld the finding that the trustees' personal dislike of the beneficiary was an extraneous factor, justifying judicial intervention.

The appeal regarding the monthly encroachment was dismissed, but the arrears calculation was adjusted to reflect when sufficient financial disclosure was provided.

This decision addresses the costs arising from two applications concerning the care and property management of Irene Deshevy, an incapable 90-year-old.

Brenda Deshevy initiated an application seeking to remove Linda Deshevy as attorney and be appointed guardian.

Linda Deshevy, Irene's appointed attorney, filed a responding application.

Brenda subsequently withdrew her application after receiving a medical report clarifying Irene's extensive care needs and her contentment with Linda's care.

The court found Brenda's application was brought in good faith due to a lack of communication and a misunderstanding of Irene's wishes, rather than misconduct.

Considering Brenda's limited income and the mixed responsibility for the litigation, the court awarded Linda Deshevy $4,000 in all-inclusive costs from Brenda.

Irene Deshevy's legal fees were ordered to be paid from her estate.

Irene Bellefeuille, 91 and incapable, was the subject of two applications: one by her son Jerry for guardianship of her property and person, and another by her daughter Jacqueline (named attorney under a power of attorney) seeking to exercise custodial powers and relocate Irene.

The court found Irene incapable.

It terminated Jacqueline's power of attorney due to strong and compelling evidence of misconduct, including co-mingling funds, using Irene's money for personal purchases, and failing to provide an adequate accounting.

The court also found Jacqueline created healthcare concerns to justify moving Irene, which was not in Irene's best interest.

Jerry Bellefeuille was appointed guardian of Irene's property and person, contingent on an updated management plan, as this was deemed to be in Irene's best interest.

Irene Bellefeuille, 91 and incapable, was the subject of two applications: one by her son Jerry for guardianship of her property and person, and another by her daughter Jacqueline (named attorney under a power of attorney) seeking to exercise custodial powers and relocate Irene.

The court found Irene incapable.

It terminated Jacqueline's power of attorney due to strong and compelling evidence of misconduct, including co-mingling funds, using Irene's money for personal purchases, and failing to provide an adequate accounting.

The court also found Jacqueline created healthcare concerns to justify moving Irene, which was not in Irene's best interest.

Jerry Bellefeuille was appointed guardian of Irene's property and person, contingent on an updated management plan, as this was deemed to be in Irene's best interest.

The applicant and respondent, who are stepfather and stepson, disputed the ownership of a residential property.

The property was initially purchased in the respondent's name but subsequently transferred into joint tenancy with the applicant and his wife (the respondent's mother), and later to the applicant and his wife alone, for nominal consideration.

The respondent claimed the property was held in trust for him, while the applicant sought partition and sale.

The court found that the applicant had provided valuable consideration for the transfers, rebutting any presumption of a resulting trust.

The court ordered the partition and sale of the property and awarded occupation rent to the applicant.

Following a motion to set aside an ex parte injunction preventing the repatriation of an incapacitated individual to the United Kingdom for medical care, the successful party sought costs.

The court considered whether costs should be awarded on a full, substantial, or partial indemnity basis under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the moving party on the set‑aside motion was the successful party and that the circumstances justified substantial indemnity costs due to the expense incurred responding to the ex parte order and issues relating to disclosure.

However, the claimed amount was reduced to reflect proportionality and efficiency concerns, including duplication of work by counsel.

Substantial indemnity costs of $10,000 all‑inclusive were awarded.