Cory A. Gilmore

This motion concerned the enforcement of a settlement agreement reached in open court regarding three complex estate applications.

The respondent, David Chong, sought to resile from the settlement, claiming duress, lack of comprehension, and fraudulent misrepresentation, and arguing the terms were unconscionable.

The court found David's reasons for resiling contradictory and uncorroborated, particularly in light of his former counsel's evidence.

The court dismissed the respondent's arguments, finding no inequality in bargaining power, no duress, and no fraudulent misrepresentation.

The court ordered the immediate sale of the property as per the settlement terms and fixed costs against the respondent.

The applicant, William David George Whitfield, initiated a Will Challenge against the estate of Tamara Leigh Whitfield, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by the respondent, Donald Murray Glover.

The respondent moved to dismiss the challenge, while the applicant cross-moved for production of medical records and preservation of a Facebook account.

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the minimum evidentiary threshold for both lack of capacity and undue influence, dismissing the Will Challenge.

Consequently, the applicant's cross-motion was rendered moot and dismissed.

Costs were awarded against the applicant, with a portion payable from the estate and a portion personally.

The applicant challenged the validity of her mother's 2016 Will and an inter vivos transfer of the mother's home to the respondent sister, alleging lack of capacity and undue influence.

The mother had a history of cognitive decline and was highly dependent on the respondent, who isolated her from the applicant.

The court found that the mother lacked testamentary capacity at the time the documents were executed and was subjected to undue influence by the respondent.

The 2016 Will and the property transfer were set aside, and the mother's prior 2007 Will was reinstated.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD) sought court direction regarding whether Caroline Witoszkin, the Estate Trustee and sole residual beneficiary of Judith Jenkins' 2022 Will, had a fiduciary duty to notify beneficiaries named in Judith's prior 2008 Will.

TD argued for notice due to the unique circumstances, including Witoszkin's former professional relationship with Jenkins and alleged suspicious circumstances.

Witoszkin opposed, asserting no such duty.

The court dismissed TD's application, finding that the Estate Trustee of the current Will has no fiduciary obligation to beneficiaries of a prior Will, especially where the testator's intentions were clear and the solicitor confirmed no undue influence.

Yvette Dubajic applied to pass her accounts as Estate Trustee and Power of Attorney for Property for her late father.

Her sister and niece opposed the accounts, sought an accounting back to 2003, and applied to remove Yvette as Estate Trustee.

The court found Yvette acted with ordinary prudence and diligence, passed her accounts for the relevant periods, and dismissed the application to remove her.

The court also awarded Yvette $15,000 in executor's compensation and ordered the opposing parties to personally pay a portion of her legal costs due to their unreasonable conduct.

The applicant, acting as estate trustee and former attorney for property for her late mother, brought an application to pass accounts.

The objector, her sister, challenged numerous expenses and withdrawals, including a $50,000 alleged gift.

The court found the applicant's fiduciary duties crystallized in March 2016 when a bank power of attorney was signed.

Due to deficient record-keeping and failure to prove the $50,000 gift, the court ordered the applicant to repay $62,500 to the estate.

The applicant was awarded reduced compensation of $6,000 and partial reimbursement for expenses.

In a will challenge and dependants' support proceeding, the moving parties sought production of financial records from Grand River Enterprises Six Nations Ltd. (GRE), a third-party corporation in which the deceased held a 12.5% interest, and leave to examine two non-parties regarding the deceased's will.

The court granted both motions, finding that the financial records were relevant to valuing the estate and assessing the testamentary sense of the will, and that the non-parties possessed relevant information not obtainable elsewhere.

The applicant estate trustee sought leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a property solely owned by the deceased's former common-law partner, claiming a 50 percent beneficial interest via constructive trust.

The respondent challenged the applicant's standing as the proceeding was commenced before the estate certificate was issued.

The court found the applicant had standing under Rule 9.03(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

However, the court dismissed the motion for a CPL, finding insufficient evidence of a triable issue regarding an interest in land, as the applicant's evidence of the deceased's financial contributions was largely uncorroborated hearsay.

The court ordered the respondent to return the deceased's personal property and awarded fixed costs of $15,000 to the respondent.

The Receiver sought directions regarding the distribution of remaining receivership proceeds amidst a creditor dispute.

One group of unsecured creditors sought pro rata distribution by pooling the assets of the individual and corporate debtors, while another unsecured creditor sought a separate, ring-fenced distribution based on its direct claim against the corporate debtors.

The Receiver proposed pooling via reverse piercing of the corporate veil or substantive consolidation.

The court granted the Receiver's motion, approving the pooled distribution scenario, disallowing the opposing creditor's claim for retroactive and post-receivership interest, and approving the Receiver's fees.

The court found that both reverse piercing of the corporate veil and substantive consolidation were appropriate remedies given the fraudulent schemes used to funnel funds into the corporate entities, and that any prejudice to the opposing creditor was diminished by the fraud's origin.

The applicant daughter brought an application seeking a capacity assessment for her father, her appointment as his guardian of property and personal care, and the setting aside of a 2020 Power of Attorney in favour of her brother.

The respondent parents brought a cross-application seeking the return of their assets held jointly by the daughter and an accounting of her management of their finances.

The court dismissed the daughter's application, finding insufficient evidence to displace the father's presumption of capacity or to set aside the 2020 Power of Attorney, and noting her failure to file a guardianship plan.

The parents' application was granted in part, with the court ordering the daughter to return title to their properties, relinquish joint accounts, and provide an accounting from 2018 to 2020.

The court also ordered the brother to provide an annual accounting and directed the appointment of a third-party administrator to manage the sale of the parents' Canadian properties.

The applicant, in his capacity as Estate Trustee, sought a declaration that the deceased's August 28, 2000 Will was valid and an order requiring the respondent to vacate estate property and pay occupation rent.

The respondent presented a modified version of the will, arguing for its validity or for an intestacy, and sought to buy out the applicant's interest in the property.

The court found the original 2000 Will to be valid, dismissed the modified will and other handwritten notes as non-testamentary, and ordered the respondent to vacate the property and pay occupation rent, as he had no legal interest in the estate property and his actions caused delay and expense to the insolvent estate.

The Applicant, Estate Trustee Robert Martin, sought to vacate a motion brought by the Respondent, Marian Martin, and to address chronic delays in the estate litigation.

The Respondent had repeatedly failed to file motion materials and comply with court timetables, leading to significant unnecessary costs for the Estate.

The court found the Respondent's actions/inactions had caused avoidable delays.

The court vacated the Respondent's motion, ordered her to pay $15,000 in costs thrown away, reduced the trial time, and set strict deadlines for the Respondent's responding record, with a provision for the Applicant's application to proceed unopposed if she failed to comply.

The court-appointed Administrator of an estate brought a motion to appoint an investigator to review the accounts and assets of two intertwined family estates.

The estates had been mired in years of acrimonious litigation among the sibling beneficiaries, with allegations of breached fiduciary duties and misappropriated funds.

Finding that the accounts were complex, significant information was missing, and the parties were highly dysfunctional, the court granted the motion and appointed the investigator to provide a neutral analysis.

The succeeding estate trustee and beneficiaries brought a motion against the former estate trustee, Lorali Queripel, for damages due to breach of fiduciary duty, punitive damages, and costs.

Lorali Queripel had failed to comply with multiple court orders to account for the Estate of Betty Shaddock and transfer assets, and had mismanaged estate property.

The court found Lorali Queripel liable for damages totaling $175,147.98 for her breaches, including failure to communicate, account, sell property, and pay expenses.

Punitive damages of $50,000 were awarded due to her egregious conduct and repeated non-compliance with court orders.

Full indemnity costs of $49,601.09 were also awarded against her.

The applicant, Estate Trustee of Aghdas Javid's Estate, brought a motion for civil contempt against the respondents, Richard Keith Watson and his professional corporation, for non-compliance with a prior judgment.

The prior judgment had invalidated a trust created by Mr. Watson, ordered the discharge of a mortgage, conveyance of a condominium, remittance of trust funds, and compliance with disclosure undertakings.

The court found the respondents in contempt for failing to provide required documents and answer undertakings, but not for the mortgage discharge or conveyance, or remitting trust funds (pending updated statements).

A penalty hearing is to follow.

This judgment addresses two consolidated applications: one by Elizabeth Dobis, Estate Trustee, seeking damages and costs from Mark Dobis for misappropriated estate funds, and another by Mark Dobis to pass accounts.

The court found that Mark Dobis had misappropriated funds and ordered him to pay $20,932.24 in damages to the Estate.

The court denied Mark Dobis's request for set-off against potential future claims for dependent's support or unjust enrichment, citing lack of equitable grounds and unliquidated claims.

Mark Dobis's accounts were passed, with the objection resolved by the damages award.

Elizabeth Dobis was also awarded costs totaling $17,100 for her application and $2,100 for a contempt motion that prompted Mark Dobis to comply with a prior order to pass accounts.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, arguing that the plaintiffs' former lawyer had sufficient knowledge of the potential claim more than two years before the action was commenced.

The plaintiffs contended that the information available to their lawyer was insufficient to trigger the limitation period, requiring further expert investigation.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that the information known to the plaintiffs' lawyer was merely a suspicion and not enough to establish a plausible inference of liability, especially given the complex technical nature of the tax issue and conflicting professional opinions.

The limitation period was held to have commenced either when further due diligence was decided upon (February 22, 2016) or when a comprehensive expert opinion was provided (February 24, 2017), both dates being within the two-year period.

This is an application to pass accounts by an Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL) for the Estate of Georgia Manos.

The beneficiary, James Manos, filed objections to the ETDL's compensation and legal fees, alleging mismanagement and excessive costs due to the ETDL's unresponsiveness.

Other beneficiaries did not object to the ETDL's compensation or fees but sought to have James pay costs incurred due to his litigation.

The court dismissed James's objections, finding that the ETDL acted with appropriate care, skill, and responsibility in administering the estate and liquidating foreign assets despite James's obstructive and disproportionate litigation tactics.

The court granted the ETDL's requested compensation and legal fees, ordering James to pay 60% of the legal costs from his share of the Estate on a partial indemnity scale, with the balance payable from the Estate.

The Applicant, Glenn Bogue, acting as co-Attorney for Property for his incapable mother, brought an application seeking various relief, including directions on sale proceeds and transfer to an Indigenous Tribunal.

The Respondent, Colin Bogue, brought a motion to dismiss the Applicant's application on the grounds that the Applicant, being self-represented while acting in a representative capacity, violated Rule 15.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court granted the Respondent's motion, dismissing the Applicant's application, and rejected all of the Applicant's arguments, including those related to Indigenous sovereignty, the authority of self-proclaimed Indigenous tribunals, and the Crown's duty to consult, finding them without legal foundation.

The Estate Trustee, Cynthia Stren, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss Morrissa Amsel's claim against the Estate, arguing it was statute-barred under the Limitations Act and/or the Trustee Act.

Morrissa claimed a trust and contractual interest in a property, asserting her claim was an equitable claim in land subject to the Real Property Limitations Act's 10-year period, and that she lacked capacity to bring the claim earlier.

The court found Morrissa's claim was contractual, not equitable, and was statute-barred under both the Limitations Act and the Trustee Act.

Her evidence of incapacity was deemed insufficient.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing Morrissa's claim.