David M. Gnam

The defendants requested an urgent case management conference because the self-represented plaintiffs failed to comply with a previously ordered timetable for Master's motions and sought broader relief than initially identified.

The court accepted the plaintiffs' explanation for the delay, which was due to an internet issue.

To ensure all motions could be heard together, the court vacated the previously scheduled dates, granted the plaintiffs time to seek legal advice, and established a revised timetable for the pending Master's motions.

At the sixth case management conference, the court addressed the scheduling of various motions proposed by the parties, including motions for summary judgment, undertakings, and further examinations.

The court granted a motion on consent to allow a plaintiff who had reached the age of majority to continue the action in her own capacity.

The court directed that the motions regarding undertakings and refusals be heard by the Case Management Master before any summary judgment motions are scheduled, emphasizing the need for effective case management.

This fifth case management endorsement addresses several procedural matters, including the rescheduling of examinations for discovery after the plaintiffs failed to attend, the completion of mandatory mediation, the transition of a minor plaintiff to an adult plaintiff requiring an order to continue, and the status of demands for particulars and freedom of information requests.

It also sets out directions for potential summary judgment motions and schedules the next case management conference.

At a fourth case management conference, the court addressed ongoing procedural issues in an action involving self-represented plaintiffs.

The court directed that future examinations for discovery proceed orally rather than by written interrogatory due to complications.

The court declined to waive mandatory mediation and deferred the plaintiffs' request to schedule a summary judgment motion until they could properly frame it in accordance with the principles of partial summary judgment.

Various other procedural directions were made, including delegating certain discovery motions to a Case Management Master.

The Court allowed the appeal and quashed an originating application for judicial review of a religious congregation’s disfellowship decision.

It held that judicial review is generally limited to public decision makers, that there is no free-standing procedural fairness claim without an underlying legal right, and that ecclesiastical issues in this dispute were non-justiciable.

Appeal in estate litigation concerning whether funds in joint bank accounts with right of survivorship formed part of the deceased's estate or were held for the benefit of all five children.

Applying the framework in Pecore, the court held the presumption of resulting trust was rebutted by evidence that the deceased intended an immediate inter vivos gift of the beneficial right of survivorship to all of his children, with the legal holders of the accounts holding that right in trust for them equally.

The court declined to entertain a new secret trust argument raised for the first time on appeal.

On the cross-appeal, the court held the trial judge erred in refusing estate indemnification, because the litigation was required for the proper administration of the estate and was caused by the testator's own arrangements.

A blended costs order was appropriate.

A dispute arose during a passing of accounts over whether funds held in joint bank accounts between a deceased parent and two adult children formed part of the estate.

The accounts were opened with rights of survivorship and funded exclusively by the deceased.

Applying the principles in Pecore v. Pecore, the court considered evidence of intention, bank documentation, control of funds, tax treatment, and surrounding circumstances.

The court held that the presumption of resulting trust was rebutted because the deceased intended to gift the beneficial interest in the joint accounts inter vivos.

The evidence further supported that the surviving joint account holders were to distribute the funds equally among all siblings, either as direct beneficiaries or through a bare trust.

The funds therefore did not form part of the estate.

The parents, who are Jehovah's Witnesses, sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order granting temporary care and custody of their premature child to the children's aid society.

The order was made to facilitate an emergency blood transfusion which the parents had refused on religious grounds.

The parents argued they were denied procedural fairness and their Charter rights were violated due to short notice and lack of counsel at the emergency teleconference hearing.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding that the parents received a fair hearing attenuated to the urgent medical circumstances, and that the issues were highly fact-specific rather than of general public importance.

The appellants, a congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, sought to build a place of worship in the respondent municipality.

After their initial application for a zoning amendment was refused with reasons, they made subsequent applications for a different lot, which the municipality summarily refused without providing reasons.

The appellants sought mandamus, arguing the refusal violated their freedom of religion and procedural fairness.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the municipality breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to provide reasons for its subsequent refusals.

The matter was remitted to the municipality for reconsideration.