Diane Vieira

The applicant sought a declaration that he was the beneficial owner of a condominium legally owned by the deceased.

He claimed an express trust agreement existed or, alternatively, a resulting trust arose because he made mortgage payments and managed the property.

The court dismissed the application, finding no written trust agreement to satisfy the Statute of Frauds and insufficient evidence of the deceased's intention to create an express trust.

The court also rejected the resulting trust claim, concluding there was no gratuitous transfer since the deceased assumed the mortgage risk and the applicant collected rental income.

The appellants, estate trustees of Dr. Zachariadis, appealed a summary judgment dismissing their claim to recover a $700,000 payment made by the deceased to his romantic partner, Ms. Giannopoulos, alleging breach of trust, fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment.

The motion judge found the payment was a valid gift and the action was statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in denying an adjournment for further examinations, confirming the payment was a gift despite alleged suspicious circumstances, and agreeing that the action was statute-barred under the Trustee Act's strict limitation period, with the doctrine of fraudulent concealment not applying.

The appeal regarding costs was also dismissed, upholding the substantial indemnity award against the estate and trustees personally.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action seeking to recover a $700,000 transfer made by the deceased to the defendant prior to his death.

The plaintiffs, who were the deceased's estranged daughters and estate trustees, argued the transfer was suspicious and sought an adjournment to examine non-party witnesses.

The court denied the adjournment, finding a lack of diligence.

The court granted summary judgment, holding that the action was statute-barred under the two-year limitation period in the Trustee Act and that the doctrine of fraudulent concealment did not apply.

In the alternative, the court found the defendant had met the burden of proving the transfer was a valid inter vivos gift.

An estate beneficiary sought removal of a co‑estate trustee and repayment of approximately $131,000 allegedly misappropriated from their father while the respondent acted under a power of attorney and provided caregiving.

The applicant argued the deceased suffered dementia and lacked financial capacity while living with the respondent.

The court found on a balance of probabilities that the deceased retained capacity to make financial decisions until shortly before his death and that the respondent did not misappropriate funds.

Evidence showed expenditures were broadly consistent with the deceased’s spending habits and the respondent gained no personal financial benefit.

The court dismissed the request to remove the trustee, declined to order repayment to the estate, and refused to compel a passing of accounts.