Elena Mamay

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) applied for an order compelling Jason Snelgrove to reimburse funds allegedly misappropriated from his mother, Loreen Snelgrove, a vulnerable senior with dementia, while he acted as her attorney for property.

The court found that Jason Snelgrove breached his fiduciary duty by failing to account for expenditures and using funds contrary to his mother's interests.

Despite Jason's claims of ignorance regarding record-keeping and his mother's capacity to instruct him, the court ordered him to repay a significant portion of the funds.

The Estate Trustee sought directions from the court regarding the interpretation and distribution of two estates following the murder of the testators by their adopted son.

The central issue was the application of the criminal forfeiture rule (slayer rule) and whether the estates should be held in trust for the murderer's potential unborn children or accelerated to alternate beneficiaries.

The court applied the implied intention approach, ruling that the murderer was disentitled from any benefit.

It further determined that the gifts to the murderer's unborn issue should also fail due to public policy and the absence of living issue at the time of disentitlement, thereby accelerating the distribution of the estates to the next lineal beneficiaries (the testatrix's brothers), subject to specific annuity provisions.

In a long-standing and highly acrimonious family trust dispute, the court considered multiple motions, including motions to dismiss for delay and abuse of process, and motions for a further and better accounting.

The court found that the plaintiffs (two of the sons) had engaged in an abuse of process through a 'scorched-earth' litigation strategy, including failing to produce relevant documents they controlled, changing counsel repeatedly, refusing to mediate, and launching collateral attacks.

Consequently, the court dismissed their actions.

However, recognizing that the trusts still required an accounting for the benefit of the other beneficiaries (the grandchildren), the court ordered the remaining trustees to provide a further and better accounting, and ordered the redemption of the matriarch's shares in the underlying holding company.

The court determined the scale and quantum of costs following the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims in two consolidated actions.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, alleging abuse of process, unsubstantiated allegations, and undue complication of litigation.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiff's conduct, while meritless and complicating, did not rise to the level of maliciousness or sanctionable abuse of process.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the Grohotolski Defendants ($136,677.24), Ms. Steele and Ms. Wolfe ($78,316.92), and Motion Endeavours, Tim Quocksister, and Silver Arrow ($16,000.00).

The court also set out a process for the remaining counterclaims by Mr. Quocksister and Silver Arrow, requiring personal service of summary judgment motion materials on the plaintiff.

The appellants, current and former uniform members of the Waterloo Regional Police Service, appealed from a motion judge's order dismissing their proposed class action for want of jurisdiction and denying certification.

The appellants alleged systemic gender-based workplace discrimination and harassment, including breach of Charter rights and breach of the duty of fair representation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction because the appellants' claims fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of labour arbitrators under the Police Services Act and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The court noted that the collective agreement permits group grievances and arbitrators possess broad remedial powers.

The plaintiffs, current and former female police officers, sought to certify a class action against the Waterloo Regional Police Services Board and Association for systemic gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment.

The defendants challenged the court's jurisdiction, arguing that labour arbitrators and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario had exclusive jurisdiction.

The court found it lacked jurisdiction, as the claims arose from the employment relationship governed by a collective agreement and the Police Services Act, which provide a comprehensive dispute resolution scheme.

Furthermore, the court determined that even if it had jurisdiction, the claims did not disclose a viable cause of action under common law, as human rights legislation precludes independent civil actions for discrimination and sexual harassment.

In a proposed class action alleging systemic gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment within the Waterloo Regional Police Service, the parties brought several pre-certification motions.

The plaintiffs' motions to compel answers to questions refused on cross-examination by the Chief of Police and the Association President were dismissed.

The defendants' motions to strike the plaintiffs' expert evidence and portions of the plaintiffs' affidavits were deemed premature and deferred to the certification motion, though the expert opinion portion of the report was excluded.

Following a motion where the moving party successfully sought to withdraw admissions involving approximately $14,000,000, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court found that the responding parties took a tactical and precarious position in opposing the motion, as the granting of leave was foreseeable absent any evidence of prejudice.

Costs were awarded to the moving party fixed at $15,000.

The moving party, in the midst of complex family trust litigation, sought leave to withdraw admissions made in a previous affidavit and to file three new affidavits.

The moving party argued the admissions regarding multi-million dollar shareholder loans were made inadvertently due to confusion and reliance on her former, now-deceased counsel.

The responding parties opposed, arguing the admissions were formal and the new evidence was an attempt to repair her case mid-hearing.

The court granted the motion, finding the admissions were likely inadvertent, raised a triable issue, and caused no non-compensable legal prejudice to the responding parties.

The court emphasized the need to decide the case on its true merits rather than a solicitor's or party's mistake.

The respondent was successful on a half-day motion brought by the applicants to remove her solicitors and add a defendant.

She sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis of $81,193.45, or alternatively on a partial indemnity basis of $61,637.67.

The court found that substantial indemnity costs were not warranted and that the requested amounts were disproportionate.

Costs were fixed and awarded to the respondent in the total amount of $42,520.33.

The applicants brought a motion to remove Cambridge LLP as solicitors of record for Sheila O’Donovan and to add Adam Cappelli as a party respondent.

The court applied a nine-factor test to assess the solicitor removal request, considering the likelihood of Mr. Cappelli being a witness and potential conflicts.

The court found no real conflict and upheld the client's right to choose counsel.

The motion to add Mr. Cappelli as a respondent was dismissed due to the advanced stage of the proceedings and delay by the applicants, though without prejudice to a future application for passing accounts.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim to add a new corporate defendant and to consolidate two related actions.

The proposed defendant opposed the motion, arguing the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court applied the discoverability doctrine and found that the plaintiffs did not know, and ought not to have known, the true identity of the testing laboratory until they received a letter from defence counsel in 2011.

The court granted leave to add the defendant, concluding the claim was not clearly statute-barred, but allowed the defendant to raise the limitation defence at a later stage.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an order refusing to set aside a Certificate of Pending Litigation obtained ex parte.

The motion raised whether the moving party had failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts, including prior sworn testimony inconsistent with the position advanced in the current litigation.

The court held there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge’s approach to materiality, which focused on whether disclosure would have changed the outcome rather than whether the information should have been disclosed to provide a complete picture.

The court found the withheld information—particularly prior sworn testimony directly contradicting the current claim—was arguably material and significant.

Leave to appeal was granted and the prior costs order was stayed pending the appeal.