Danielle R. Joel

The moving party brought an urgent motion for a stay pending appeal, which was adjourned and ultimately became moot when her motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The responding estate trustees and the Children's Lawyer sought their costs of the stay motion on a full indemnity basis.

The court found that the responding parties were required to oppose the stay motion due to the broad relief initially sought and the urgency claimed by the moving party.

Applying the principles from Sawdon Estate, the court made a blended costs order, fixing the responding parties' full indemnity costs and directing the moving party to pay a partial indemnity portion, with the balance to be paid from the estate.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of Dietrich J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the Office of the Children's Lawyer and $5,000 to the responding estate trustees.

Appeals from determinations made by an application judge regarding the will of the late Peter Trezzi.

The deceased operated a successful construction business through two corporations: Across Canada Construction Ltd. (ACC) and Trezzi Construction Ltd. (Trezzi Construction).

Peter was the sole shareholder of Trezzi Construction.

The central disputes concerned whether Peter could effectively bequeath assets held by Trezzi Construction to his son Albert; whether his wife Gina owned 50 per cent of ACC shares; and whether Gina was entitled to an extension of time to file a surviving spouse's election under the Family Law Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all three appeals, upholding the application judge's determinations on each issue.

Appeals from determinations made by an application judge regarding the will of the late Peter Trezzi.

The deceased operated a successful construction business through two corporations: Across Canada Construction Ltd. (ACC) and Trezzi Construction Ltd. (Trezzi Construction).

Peter was the sole shareholder of Trezzi Construction.

The central disputes concerned whether Peter could effectively bequeath assets held by Trezzi Construction to his son Albert; whether his wife Gina owned 50 per cent of ACC shares; and whether Gina was entitled to an extension of time to file a surviving spouse's election under the Family Law Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all three appeals, upholding the application judge's determinations on each issue.

The applicants, children of the deceased, sought declarations of a constructive trust over the survivor's assets based on a mutual wills agreement, alleging breach due to a $200,000 gift and failure to provide information.

The court found that a constructive trust only arises upon breach of the mutual wills agreement, not automatically upon the first testator's death, particularly when the survivor receives assets absolutely.

It was determined that the survivor's gift was not substantial enough to defeat the agreement, nor was her failure to provide information a breach, as the applicants were not beneficiaries under the deceased's will.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

This costs endorsement followed multiple motions concerning the administration of the Estate of Peter Trezzi.

The court applied the modern approach to costs in estate litigation, considering public policy factors and the general civil litigation costs regime.

Costs were determined for four main matters: ownership of 18 Boyle Drive, extension of the applicant's Family Law Act rights, corporate assets, and share ownership of Across Canada Construction Ltd. The court also addressed costs for an adjournment motion, production orders, and consent orders.

The decision allocated costs between parties and the Estate, often finding that the Estate should bear costs due to issues arising from the deceased's actions or ambiguities in the will.

Alfrida Gina Trezzi sought a declaration that she was a 50% owner of Across Canada Construction Ltd. (ACC) shares.

Albert Trezzi opposed, arguing her claim was statute-barred and that she was not a shareholder.

The court dismissed the limitation period argument.

However, the court found no evidence that ACC ever issued shares to Gina, despite unexecuted organizational documents suggesting a 50/50 split with Peter Trezzi.

The court rejected the application of statutory presumptions under the Business Corporations Act and Securities Transfer Act, concluding Gina failed to prove her ownership claim.

Albert's cross-application for a declaration that Peter's estate owned all shares was also declined as the hearing only addressed Gina's alleged ownership.

In an addendum to previous reasons ordering a buyout of certain members of a corporation, the court addressed disputed terms of the buyout order.

The court determined that the boundaries of severed and retained parcels did not require further input, as the total property value would dictate payouts.

The court also ruled that costs, including commissions, closing costs, and capital gains taxes related to the sale of severed parcels, must be borne by the departing members who benefit from those sales.

A request for interim distributions was denied due to practical uncertainties and tax liabilities.

The Lash family owned a 30-acre cottage property through a non-profit corporation, Lash Point Association Corp. (LPAC).

A dispute arose between family members who wanted to sell their interests and leave (the leave camp) and those who wanted to keep the property for future generations (the remain camp).

The leave camp applied to wind up the corporation and sell the entire property, while the remain camp proposed a court-ordered buyout of the departing members funded by the sale of severed parcels.

The court dismissed the winding up application, finding that a buyout was a viable alternative that would allow departing members to receive fair market value while preserving the corporation's purpose for the remaining members.

The court appointed a receiver to implement the buyout process.

Following a motion hearing concerning a significant advance payment request in complex estate-related litigation, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

Applying the factors in Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court considered the importance and novelty of the issues and the reasonable expectations of experienced litigants.

The plaintiff was successful and entitled to substantial costs for the motion.

The court also addressed the entitlement of the estate trustee during litigation to costs payable from the estate under a prior order.

A surviving spouse sought an advance equalization payment of $4.5 million from the estate of her deceased husband under the Family Law Act or, alternatively, partial summary judgment.

The motion was opposed by several defendants asserting potential claims against the estate and challenging their standing and the appropriateness of the advance.

The court held that the equalization entitlement between spouses is personal under the Family Law Act and that the defendants were neither proven creditors nor beneficiaries.

Applying the three-part test for advance equalization payments from Laamanen v. Laamanen, the court found a reasonable need for litigation funding, little doubt of entitlement to at least the requested amount, and that granting the advance was just in the circumstances.

Following earlier rulings on a derivative leave motion in estate litigation, the court addressed outstanding procedural directions and the issue of costs for five related motions.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $144,000 for work connected primarily to the derivative issues.

Applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the proportionality principles discussed in Boucher v. Public Accountants, the court held that the requested amount far exceeded the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful parties for a one‑day motion.

Substantial indemnity costs were denied.

The court fixed costs payable by the defendants jointly and severally at $55,000 inclusive of taxes and interest.

The estate trustee during litigation sought full indemnity costs following a contested passing of accounts in an estate matter.

The objector, a beneficiary, repeatedly failed to particularize objections, disregarded procedural directions, and caused significant delay and inefficiency during the proceedings.

The court found the estate trustee was substantially successful and that most objections were unsupported.

Although full indemnity costs from the estate were appropriate in principle for a passing of accounts, the court held the amount claimed was excessive given the nature of the issues and inefficiencies arising from multiple counsel and staff working on the file.

Costs were therefore reduced to a reasonable amount.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent over $4 million in damages for the lost opportunity to develop a shopping plaza after the appellant repudiated an oral agreement to be the anchor tenant.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding an independent oral agreement, assessing damages, and failing to consider post-agreement conduct.

The respondent cross-appealed the trial judge's 50% reduction of its disbursements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no palpable or overriding errors in the trial judge's factual findings or exercise of discretion.

The appellants appealed an order interpreting Articles 5 and 8.09 of a Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act plan of compromise.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge's interpretation was reasonable, fostered a fair and efficient administration of the plan, and was entitled to deference given his familiarity with the complex negotiating process.

A claim for rectification advanced for the first time on appeal was also dismissed for lack of an evidentiary basis.