David Scharf

The applicants challenged the validity of powers of attorney and wills executed by their elderly parents in April and December 2017, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by the respondent son.

The court found that while the parents did not lack testamentary capacity, the December 2017 wills were procured through the respondent's undue influence.

The evidence demonstrated a pattern of coercion, isolation, and manipulation by the respondent, who controlled access to the parents and fabricated allegations against the applicants.

The December 2017 wills were set aside, and the respondent was ordered to pass his accounts for the period he acted as attorney for property.

The estate trustee brought a motion to strike the respondent's application claiming a beneficial interest in the deceased's property based on promissory estoppel.

The respondent, who had cohabited with the deceased, argued his claim was for an interest in land and subject to the 10-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act.

The court held that equitable trust claims against an estate are governed by the strict two-year limitation period under the Trustee Act.

The motion was granted and the application was permanently stayed, though the respondent was permitted to plead his equitable claims as a setoff against the estate's claim for occupation rent.

The applicants sought interim relief in an estate dispute, including leave to pass accounts for an attorney for property, production of bank records, and permission to visit Michael Dawson (101 years old).

The respondents opposed some relief and sought to strike an exhibit from an affidavit.

The court, through extensive discussion, facilitated the parties' agreement on most interim issues.

The court ordered the amendment of the title of proceeding to properly constitute Josephine Dawson's estate, granted leave for the applicants to bring a motion to pass accounts, ordered the production of bank records, and permitted the applicants to visit Michael Dawson under supervision.

The court also struck an exhibit from Sheila Dawson's affidavit and adjourned the motion to strike related paragraphs.

The court emphasized the need for parties to resolve procedural matters collaboratively and warned about the costs of estate litigation.

The applicant sought an order for the distribution of the residue of an estate in four equal shares, including herself, based on the interpretation of the deceased's will.

The will contained clauses contingent on whether the deceased and the applicant had a shared ownership interest in a primary residence at the time of death.

The executor argued that a clause excluding the applicant applied because she separately owned a primary residence.

The court, applying the "armchair rule" of will interpretation, found that the relevant clauses referred to a shared ownership interest between the deceased and the applicant.

Since they did not share ownership of a primary residence, the clause entitling the applicant to an equal share of the residue applied.

The application was granted, and costs were awarded to the applicant.