David Harris-Lowe

The appellant sought to overturn a trial decision regarding the distribution of life insurance proceeds from a deceased parent's estate.

The policy, initially benefiting both the appellant and the respondent sibling, was later altered to name the respondent as the sole beneficiary as part of estate planning.

The appellant contended that a binding agreement existed to reduce the policy's value and ensure equitable inheritance.

The trial judge found no such agreement, concluding that the parent's intentions for equal treatment had evolved.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or assessment of evidence, thereby upholding the conclusion that the agreement did not mandate a policy reduction or impose a duty on the respondent to disclose decisions regarding the policy's maintenance.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiff claimed entitlement to the proceeds of her deceased husband's investment accounts, alleging an oral agreement that they would remain beneficiaries on each other's accounts, and asserting a constructive trust.

She also sued the investment firm for failing to notify her when the deceased changed his beneficiaries to his children.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the investment firm had no duty to disclose the deceased's personal financial decisions, and the plaintiff failed to establish a constructive trust or agreement, noting she had already received a substantial portion of the estate.

The defendants brought a motion for an order to return Ann Corbet, an incapable 92-year-old suffering from advanced dementia, to their home from a long-term care facility.

Ann Corbet's attorney for personal care, Drude Corbet, had placed her in the facility after medical assessments indicated her incapacity and crisis care needs, and concerns arose regarding her care at the defendants' residence and alleged misuse of her funds.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the attorney acted diligently and in good faith, considering Ann Corbet's best interests and statutory principles under the Substitute Decisions Act.

The court determined that Ann Corbet's expressed wishes were not sufficiently clear or consistent due to her dementia and that the defendants failed to prove the attorney acted improperly.

The plaintiff, Richard Froud, was wholly unsuccessful in his action against his sister, Susan Froud, concerning their mother's estate.

This endorsement addresses the defendants' request for substantial indemnity costs.

The court considered the defendants' offer to settle, which the plaintiff did not accept, and the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

While the plaintiff's conduct did not meet the threshold for reprehensible conduct warranting substantial indemnity costs, the court found the defendants' Bill of Costs reasonable given the complexity and duration of the litigation.

The court awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs of $75,000, inclusive of disbursements.

The applicant sought contempt and enforcement orders against the respondent for multiple breaches of a final parenting order, including travel without consent, denial of telephone and in-person access, and involving children in parental disputes.

The respondent cross-moved to reduce the applicant's access and for other interventions, alleging the children's resistance due to the applicant's temperament.

The court found the respondent in contempt for wilfully and deliberately breaching several provisions of the order, emphasizing her failure to actively promote access and her role in sabotaging the parenting schedule.

The respondent's motion to vary was dismissed, as no material change in circumstances was found.

The court ordered the respondent to comply with the order, attend a parenting course with the applicant, and pay half the cost of a prior counselling session.

A family law appeal concerning custody and child support.

The father defaulted on attending a case conference following a motor vehicle accident and was noted in default.

The trial judge granted the mother sole custody with access at her discretion and ordered child support based on the father's 2015 income retroactive to October 2011.

The father's motion to set aside the default judgment was dismissed at first instance.

On appeal, the court found the father had an arguable case on the issue of retroactive child support, as the trial judge may have failed to consider the father's significantly lower 2013 income when determining retroactive support.

The appeal was partially allowed.