Elaine Yu

Following a successful appeal and dismissal of a cross-appeal, the parties agreed that the appellants were entitled to costs throughout and agreed on the quantum for the application.

The Court of Appeal ordered the respondent to pay $105,000 in partial indemnity costs for the application and $70,000 in partial indemnity costs for the appeal, payable within 60 days.

The appellants sought to enforce a Property Partnership Agreement granting them an option to purchase a residential property from the respondent, their mother.

The application judge declared the Agreement unenforceable on the basis that it contained an incomplete essential term regarding distribution of excess sale proceeds, and further found undue influence, breach of fiduciary duty, and unconscionability.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the incomplete term was non-essential and severable, that no presumption of undue influence arose given the respondent's capacity and the specific nature of the relationship, that independent legal advice was received before the Agreement was signed, and that the unconscionability analysis failed to meet the threshold established in Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller.

The cross-appeal was dismissed as moot.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' application regarding a property dispute, the successful respondent sought full indemnity costs of $268,233.87.

The court rejected the claim for full indemnity costs, finding no malicious conduct by the applicants and noting the requested amount was disproportionate to the applicants' own costs.

The court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs fixed at $105,681.60 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The applicant, as estate trustee, sought the court's advice and direction on three issues: the beneficial ownership and exigibility of a residential property (Concession Road Property), the legal validity of an insurance policy trust for the deceased's children, and leave to assign the estate into bankruptcy.

The court found that the Concession Road Property was beneficially owned by the deceased's ex-wife and was not exigible for estate creditors.

It also determined that the purported insurance policy trust was not legally binding due to precatory language and lack of certainty of subject matter.

Finally, the court denied leave for the estate to be assigned into bankruptcy, finding the applicant had not sufficiently proven the estate's insolvency.

The applicants, a beneficiary and a legatee, sought to enforce a 2010 settlement agreement and obtain payment of a legacy from an estate.

The former estate trustee had delayed the administration of the estate and the transfer of a property for over a decade.

The court ordered the payment of the $20,000 legacy with 2% interest, reimbursed the former trustee for proven property expenses, denied the beneficiary's claim for lost rental income, and awarded costs to the applicants payable from the estate.