Dr. Singla

The applicant, Millie Reville, sought to validate a 2019 will naming her as the estate trustee and primary beneficiary of Mark Weeks' estate, claiming to be his common-law spouse.

The respondent, Vania Weeks, the deceased's separated spouse and estate trustee under a 2008 will, challenged the 2019 will's validity, alleging it was not properly signed or was procured by undue influence.

The court heard oral testimony from the 2019 will's witnesses and considered expert forensic document examiner reports.

The court found the 2019 will was duly executed and dismissed the undue influence claim.

The applicant was appointed estate trustee, and the respondent was ordered to return estate property and reimburse funds improperly disbursed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her claim that a painting she purchased from the respondents, attributed to Norval Morrisseau, was a fake.

The trial judge found the painting was authentic based on expert handwriting analysis and fact witnesses, rejecting the appellant's evidence which included a statutory declaration by the artist.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings and no reversible error of law regarding the admission of hearsay or opinion evidence under the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that a change of beneficiary form for a life insurance policy was not forged.

The trial judge preferred the evidence of the respondent's handwriting expert over the appellant's expert and found no clear evidence of fraud.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings were open to him and that he did not err in his treatment of the evidence or in declining to draw adverse inferences.

The applicant, a former waitress at the respondents' restaurant, alleged sexual harassment, discrimination, and reprisal under the Human Rights Code.

She claimed the personal respondent made sexual comments, touched her inappropriately, and terminated her employment when she confronted him.

She also alleged post-termination reprisals, including a threat of civil action from the respondents' counsel.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and preferring the respondents' evidence that she was terminated for poor work performance.

The Tribunal also held that the threat of civil action in a letter from the respondents' counsel was protected by absolute privilege and could not form the basis of a reprisal claim.