Cory A. Gilmore

The applicant sought to remove her brother as executor of their mother's estate and to recover funds he misappropriated from their mother and a family friend's estate.

The respondent had failed to comply with numerous court orders, refused to vacate the deceased's home, and failed to pass accounts.

The court removed the respondent as executor, appointed the Estate Trustee During Litigation in his place, and ordered the respondent to repay misappropriated funds, pay occupation rent, and bear the tax penalties incurred due to his inaction.

The court also set aside a RRIF beneficiary designation due to undue influence and awarded full indemnity costs against the respondent personally.

Three related applications were brought concerning the beneficial ownership of a residential property.

The Public Guardian and Trustee, acting for an incapable sibling, sought a declaration of a Purchase Money Resulting Trust (PMRT) based on her contributions to the down payment and mortgage.

The court found that the incapable sibling contributed 61.87% of the purchase price and lacked capacity to gift or loan the funds, establishing a PMRT.

The court ordered the property vested in her name and sold, with the remaining siblings retaining minority interests.

One sibling was ordered to disgorge profits from an unauthorized mortgage refinancing, while claims for occupation rent and a car loan were dismissed.

The Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL) brought a motion for approval of the sale of a commercial property co-owned by the insolvent estate and a third party.

The sale was opposed by certain beneficiaries who argued the sale price was improvident and the ETDL failed to follow court-ordered sales processes.

The co-owner initially opposed the sale but later consented.

The court applied the Soundair principles and approved the sale, finding that the property had been adequately marketed, the price was not improvident given the property's derelict state and ongoing operating losses, and the co-owner had waived any procedural irregularities.

The applicant beneficiary objected to the accounts passed by the respondent Estate Trustee, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, unauthorized renovations to the deceased's home, poor record-keeping, and failure to pay estate taxes.

The court found that while the respondent did not act with malice, his administration of the estate fell short of the required standard.

The court ordered a reduction in the respondent's trustee compensation and required him to repay the applicant for funds allegedly used for taxes and a mortgage payout that could not be traced to estate benefits.

The applicant's request for additional damages was dismissed.

The applicant, who was awarded $2.39 million in damages in a civil sexual assault trial against the deceased, brought a motion for a Preservation Order to prevent the respondent Estate Trustee from depleting the estate's assets to fund an appeal of the civil judgment.

The respondent argued the estate funds were not a specific fund and that she was entitled to use them to defend the estate.

The court found the estate funds constituted a specific fund and that the respondent was in a conflict of interest as the sole beneficiary.

The court granted the Preservation Order but permitted the estate to fund the appeal up to a maximum of $25,000.

The applicants, the titled owners of a residential property, brought an application to evict the respondent mother and brother from the home.

The respondent brother, acting as power of attorney for the mother, brought a cross-application asserting trust claims against the property on behalf of their deceased father's estate.

The court allowed the eviction application and dismissed the estate application, finding that the mother lacked standing to advance trust claims on behalf of the intestate estate and that the claims were statute-barred under the Real Property Limitations Act.

Furthermore, the court found no evidence to support a resulting or constructive trust, as the presumption of resulting trust was rebutted by evidence that the property transfer was for consideration.

The self-represented applicant brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against his siblings for allegedly failing to comply with a prior production order, and seeking extensive further productions of corporate records spanning 35 years related to family businesses.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding the issue was one of interpreting the scope of the prior order rather than deliberate defiance.

The court also dismissed the request for further productions, holding that the requests were disproportionate, overly broad, and largely irrelevant to the underlying application regarding their incapable mother's property.

The moving party, who suffered a permanent brain injury from an assault, brought a motion to terminate his guardianship of property and for a declaration that he is capable of managing his own property.

The motion was opposed by his mother, who raised concerns about his impulsivity and vulnerability to financial scams.

The court reviewed capacity assessments and cognitive reports submitted by the moving party but found them deficient for failing to address his medical history and the concerns raised by collateral sources.

The court concluded that the moving party currently lacks the ability to appreciate the consequences of his financial decisions.

The guardianship was ordered to continue, but the moving party was provided with $15,000 to manage for six months as a trial period, after which he may return to court with further evidence.

The respondent estate trustee moved to dismiss the applicant's dependent's relief application on the grounds of res judicata, lack of standing, and being statute-barred.

The applicant, a former casual girlfriend of the deceased, had previously litigated and lost her dependent's relief claims and owed over $40,000 in unpaid costs.

The court dismissed the application, finding it was an abuse of process and statute-barred.

Due to the applicant's abusive and racist communications towards opposing counsel, the court imposed strict conditions on her ability to commence future proceedings, including requiring leave and payment of all outstanding costs.

The applicant was entirely successful at trial in setting aside a property transfer on the grounds of undue influence and resulting trust.

The applicant sought costs of $486,500 on a partial and substantial indemnity basis, citing the respondent's unreasonable conduct, breaches of court orders, and rejection of multiple settlement offers.

The court found the respondent unduly lengthened the proceeding and misappropriated funds.

However, applying principles of proportionality and noting some duplication in the applicant's dockets, the court fixed the applicant's all-inclusive costs at $300,000, payable from the respondent's net share of the property sale proceeds.

The applicant sought an order striking the respondent's Notice of Appearance in consolidated estate proceedings involving two estates.

The respondent, who was named as estate trustee in both wills, had persistently failed to comply with multiple court orders requiring disclosure, accounting, mediation attendance, and cooperation with an Estate Trustee During Litigation.

The court found clear and deliberate breaches of numerous interlocutory orders, including peremptory orders, coupled with conduct that demonstrated the futility of granting further opportunities to comply.

The respondent's defences were repetitive, unsworn, and uncorroborated.

The court struck the Notice of Appearance and ordered the applications to proceed as unopposed, finding that the respondent's conduct had caused extraordinary expense and delay in administering a modest estate.

The applicant, the wife of Carl Joseph Bennett, sought a declaration that Powers of Attorney signed by Carl in September 2023 were invalid due to lack of capacity and undue influence, or alternatively, that the respondent son had breached his fiduciary duties as attorney.

The court found that Carl lacked capacity to execute the POAs and that the respondent had breached multiple fiduciary duties under the Substitute Decisions Act.

The court terminated the POAs and appointed the applicant as Carl's Guardian of Property and Person.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs and provide full accounting of Carl's finances.

This decision concerns a motion under section 79 of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, regarding the capacity of Carol Jacqueline Black.

The Court orders that Ms. Black undergo a capacity assessment, with her medical records and related materials to be released to all parties and the assessor.

The Court addresses the history of the parties' disputes, the involvement of various professionals, and the need for independent legal representation for Ms. Black.

The ruling balances the privacy interests of Ms. Black with the need for a fair process and the protection of vulnerable persons.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) applied for guardianship of the property of Rodney Beals, a 55-year-old man with schizophrenia and developmental delay, after $2 million in lottery winnings were dissipated by family members acting as his attorneys for property.

The court found that Rodney was incapable of managing his property at the time of the lottery win, that his family members owed and breached fiduciary duties, and that the PGT should be appointed as guardian of property.

The court ordered the termination of existing powers of attorney, the appointment of the PGT, and costs against the family members.

The applicant challenged the validity of his deceased mother's 2005 Will, arguing that her limited English skills prevented her from understanding and approving its contents and that the Will was executed under suspicious circumstances.

The respondent, the deceased's daughter and estate trustee, defended the Will's validity and sought occupation rent from the applicant for his rent-free residence in the deceased's home since her death.

The Court dismissed the application, finding that the deceased possessed sufficient English proficiency to understand and approve the Will and that there was no evidence of duress or undue influence.

Consequently, the Court declared the 2005 Will valid, ordered the applicant to pay $144,766.02 in occupation rent to the estate, and granted a writ of possession to enforce his eviction.

The court considered whether shares in a co-operative housing corporation, registered to Anne and Jacob Glickman, were held jointly or as tenants in common.

The Estate of Yaacov Glickman sought a declaration that it was the sole beneficial and legal owner of the shares by right of survivorship.

The court found that the shares were held jointly, and upon Anne’s death, her interest passed to Jacob by survivorship.

The court rejected arguments to expand the definition of “land” in the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act to include co-op shares, holding that the Family Law Act presumption of joint tenancy applied.

This is a will challenge concerning the estate of Reka Anroop.

The applicants, Bryan Anroop and Amadai Hardayal, challenged the validity of Reka’s Fourth Will dated May 19, 2022, alleging lack of knowledge and approval, lack of capacity, undue influence, forgery, and unconscionable procurement.

The respondents are Reka’s adult children, with only Chandrawattie Naqvi participating in the litigation.

The court found that the Fourth Will was valid, Reka had capacity, was not unduly influenced, and the signature was not a forgery.

The applicants’ claim for reimbursement for renovations was allowed.

The court also addressed a related Small Claims Court action regarding a life insurance payout.

The plaintiff corporation brought a motion for an equalization payment of $320,713.66 from the defendant corporations, arising from a prior trial decision regarding the division of corporate assets between two siblings.

The defendants brought a cross-motion seeking to recalculate the equalization payment to include the value of preference shares, which would result in the plaintiff's principal owing $2,625,000.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion and dismissed the defendants' cross-motion, finding that the calculation of the equalization payment and the exclusion of the preference shares had already been determined in prior proceedings and were therefore res judicata.

The court also resolved several ancillary issues, including the transfer of burial plots and the return of original documents, and prohibited the parties from commencing further litigation without leave.

The applicants brought a motion to remove Tiffany Jean as Estate Trustee of the Estate of Warren Nelson Holbrook and for an interpretation of the Hotchpot Clause in Mr. Holbrook’s Will.

The court dismissed the motion to remove the Estate Trustee, finding that the applicants had not met the high threshold for removal, despite ongoing family friction and concerns about conflict of interest regarding a family business (Rejenmor).

The court provided directions for the future of Rejenmor, requiring its windup or sale within two years.

Regarding the Hotchpot Clause, the court adopted the Estate Trustee's interpretation, which treated lifetime advances to beneficiaries as gifts rather than loans requiring repayment, resulting in an unequal distribution where only one beneficiary would receive a residual share.

The applicant Estate Trustee sought directions at a case conference regarding multiple late affidavits filed by the respondents, who had refused to vacate the deceased's property.

The court ordered that portions of the respondents' affidavits be struck for improperly referencing without prejudice settlement offers, attempting to relitigate previously decided issues, and raising matters outside the scope of the application.

Noting the respondent Michael Siiman's history as a declared vexatious litigant and his abusive conduct, the court imposed strict procedural conditions for the upcoming hearing, including communication restrictions and a prohibition on filing further affidavits.