Douglas G. Loucks

This is a costs endorsement following the court's approval of a settlement in an estate matter.

The Applicant (David Grier) and Respondent (Janet Grier, represented by the Public Guardian and Trustee) sought court approval for a settlement, which was opposed by a non-party, Sandra Grier.

Due to Sandra Grier's unreasonable, deliberate, improper, and vexatious conduct, including failure to follow court orders and making unsubstantiated fraud allegations, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs against her, to be paid from her share of the estate.

The court also approved the legal fees for the Applicant and Respondent, with portions paid by the estate and their respective shares, finding them reasonable given the complexity and duration of the litigation.

The applicant and respondent, both persons under a disability, reached a settlement in a protracted estate litigation dispute regarding their late father's will and power of attorney accounting.

They brought motions for court approval of the settlement.

A non-party sibling opposed the settlement, alleging unaccounted funds and lack of capacity of another beneficiary.

The court approved the settlement, finding it was in the best interests of the disabled parties, and dismissed the non-party's motion.

The court also ordered the settlement funds to be paid directly to the respondent and to the applicant's attorney for property, rather than into court.

A non-party in an estate litigation matter brought a motion seeking the recusal of the presiding judge, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The non-party argued that the judge breached natural justice by disclosing an ex parte Mareva injunction motion to opposing counsel and dismissing it without reading the materials.

The court dismissed the recusal motion, finding no cogent evidence to overcome the strong presumption of judicial impartiality, noting that the materials were reviewed, written reasons were provided, and the existence of the motion was public information.

A non-party sibling, Sandra Gail Grier, brought a motion for contempt against D.J. Grier and, in the alternative, for disclosure of settlement approval documents in estate litigation involving her siblings D.J. Grier and J.L. Grier, both under disability.

The motion for contempt was dismissed due to improper personal service.

The court granted partial disclosure, ordering D.J. Grier and J.L. Grier to serve Sandra and Garret (Sandra's son) with specific affidavits related to the settlement approval, excluding solicitor-client privileged information, and ordered certain affidavits to be sealed.

Sandra was awarded $1,000 in costs, with the determination of who pays to be made later.

The defendant brought a motion to compel answers to undertakings and questions refused on discovery in an action involving a claim on a surety bond.

The court applied the tests for relevance and proportionality under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court ordered the plaintiff to answer questions relating to time and material costs, documents reviewed for an expert report, and the provision of false statutory declarations.

The court dismissed the motion regarding questions about the plaintiff's calculation of overhead and profits and its payment of trades and suppliers, finding them irrelevant to the lump sum contract claim.

Ernest Groh applied for a capacity assessment of his 81-year-old mother, Gabriella Grohotolski, and for the suspension of her attorneys' authority (Doris Steele and Joan F. Wolfe) and an order for them to pass accounts, alleging mismanagement.

Gabriella and the attorneys opposed, asserting Gabriella's capacity and proper management.

The court dismissed Ernest's application, finding no reasonable grounds to believe Gabriella was incapable and no evidence of improper management by the attorneys.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiff's amended statement of claim, specifically allegations of express/implied misrepresentation and breach of duty to disclose against Larry Davis.

The court struck out the claim based on express/implied misrepresentation, finding the particulars insufficient and the alleged representation too remote in time.

However, the court dismissed the motion to strike the claim based on a breach of a duty to disclose, acknowledging the arguable existence of a "special relationship" between a proposed borrower and a bank that could create such a duty.

David Grier, through his litigation guardian, moved to strike Janet Grier's notice of objection to the passing of accounts, citing her non-compliance with court orders.

Janet, through her litigation guardian, cross-moved for a full accounting of James Grier's estate, arguing that the estate's true value was undetermined.

The court dismissed David's motion to strike, finding it premature given the need for a proper valuation of the estate and Janet's health issues.

The court granted Janet's cross-motion for directions, ordering a strict timetable for disclosure of estate financial information by David.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for leave to amend its statement of claim to add allegations of negligent misrepresentation against the principal of the defendant corporation, following news of his criminal indictment in New York.

The defendants opposed the amendments, arguing they lacked particularity and contained evidence rather than material facts.

The Master granted the motion, finding the proposed amendments set out a claim tenable at law, but ordered the plaintiff to provide additional particulars regarding the specific statements made, the special relationship, and the costs claimed.

The estate trustee applied to pass accounts and sought compensation for work performed both as trustee and as solicitor in administering the estate.

A beneficiary objected to the amounts claimed, arguing the compensation and legal fees were excessive given the simple and uncomplicated nature of the estate administration.

The court reviewed the principles governing trustee compensation under the Trustee Act and the established five-factor test, emphasizing that percentage-based tariffs are only a rough guide and must yield to the overarching requirement of fairness and reasonableness.

Finding that reliance on standard percentage tariffs produced unreasonable results in a straightforward estate of modest complexity, the court reduced both the executor’s compensation and the legal fees claimed for probate work.

The court substantially upheld the objections and fixed the trustee’s total compensation at a lower amount reflecting the nature and value of the work performed.