Frances Jagtoo

On an estate appeal, the appellants challenged findings that upheld a later will, dismissed their application, and refused costs relief.

The court found legal and palpable-and-overriding errors in the trial-level analysis of suspicious circumstances, knowledge and approval, conflict concerns surrounding the drafting solicitor, and undue influence evidence.

The court held the impugned will invalid, granted related relief dismissing the connected Small Claims Court action, and set aside the costs order.

Applying modern estate-costs principles, the court ordered a blended costs result, including substantial indemnity costs personally against the respondent for part of first-instance costs, with the remaining amounts payable from the estate.

This is a will challenge concerning the estate of Reka Anroop.

The applicants, Bryan Anroop and Amadai Hardayal, challenged the validity of Reka’s Fourth Will dated May 19, 2022, alleging lack of knowledge and approval, lack of capacity, undue influence, forgery, and unconscionable procurement.

The respondents are Reka’s adult children, with only Chandrawattie Naqvi participating in the litigation.

The court found that the Fourth Will was valid, Reka had capacity, was not unduly influenced, and the signature was not a forgery.

The applicants’ claim for reimbursement for renovations was allowed.

The court also addressed a related Small Claims Court action regarding a life insurance payout.

The appellant law firm appealed the dismissal of its application seeking to set a market rate for lease renewal and compensation for renovations, and also sought leave to appeal a costs order from a prior cross-motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's findings that the respondent landlord did not breach its duty to act in good faith during lease negotiations, that the expert evidence was properly considered, and that compensation for renovations was not warranted.

The court also refused leave to appeal the costs order from the cross-motion, finding no strong grounds to interfere with the motion judge's discretion.

The plaintiff, a former Service Advisor at a Canadian Tire store, sued his former employer and others for wrongful dismissal, malicious prosecution, defamation, and other torts after he was fired and arrested for allegedly installing KGB spyware on his manager's computer.

The plaintiff claimed he was framed by the defendants either because he refused to 'upsell' or as a decoy for a separate credit card pin pad fraud.

The court rejected the plaintiff's conspiracy theories, finding that the employer proved on a balance of probabilities that the plaintiff installed the spyware, which constituted just cause for dismissal.

The court also dismissed all tort claims, finding the defendants had reasonable grounds to call the police, the police independently decided to lay charges, and the defendants' conduct was not malicious, outrageous, or defamatory.

The plaintiff was successful in a wrongful dismissal trial and sought costs.

Following the trial but before costs were decided, the defendant made a voluntary assignment into bankruptcy.

The court noted that the plaintiff did not need to seek an order lifting the stay under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to obtain a costs order, as judgment was rendered prior to the assignment.

The plaintiff beat its offer to settle and sought full indemnity costs of over $232,000.

The court applied the overriding principle of reasonableness, declining to engage in a purely mathematical exercise of reviewing time spent, and fixed the plaintiff's costs at $73,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The plaintiff, a 60-year-old upholsterer with 32 years of service, sued his former employer for wrongful dismissal.

He passed away before trial, raising preliminary evidentiary issues regarding the admissibility of his examination for discovery transcripts and hearsay statements made to others.

The court admitted the evidence under the principled approach to hearsay.

On the merits, the court found the plaintiff was wrongfully dismissed, not having resigned as the employer claimed, and awarded 23 months' reasonable notice.

The court also awarded $5,000 for a breach of the Human Rights Code, finding the termination was partly based on age and disability, but dismissed claims for aggravated and punitive damages.