Frederick E. Leitch

The respondent, in his personal capacity and as estate trustee, moved for summary judgment to dismiss claims by his siblings (the applicants) regarding nine Arizona properties.

The respondent argued the claims were statute-barred, subject to res judicata, or did not raise a genuine issue for trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that res judicata did not apply as the issues were not determined in a prior passing of accounts, and the limitation periods under the Trustee Act or Limitations Act, 2002 did not apply to notices of objection in a passing of accounts application.

The court also found that the respondent failed to account for inter vivos gifts of property, raising factual and legal questions requiring a trial.

The defendant, Jonathan Hugill, was charged with theft under $5,000, three counts of fraud over $5,000, and three counts of uttering forged documents, all related to cheques belonging to his brother, Jason Hugill.

The central issue was whether Jason had authorized Jonathan to take, fill out, and sign the cheques.

The court found Jonathan's testimony to be unreliable and noted inconsistencies in Jason's evidence regarding when he discovered the alleged unauthorized cheques.

Due to a reasonable doubt as to whether Jason had given consent or authorization, the court acquitted Jonathan on all charges.

The appellant challenged the validity of two wills executed by her deceased husband on the grounds that he lacked testamentary capacity due to chronic alcoholism.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding that the testator possessed testamentary capacity and knew and approved of the contents of his wills.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred in excluding expert evidence and in finding that the testator had capacity.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no palpable or overriding error.

The court held that the trial judge properly exercised her discretion as gatekeeper in excluding the expert evidence, which had become increasingly tentative and speculative.

The court also found that the trial judge properly applied the framework for assessing will validity, including the displaced presumption triggered by suspicious circumstances relating to the testator's mental capacity.

The appellant husband appealed a trial judge's decision regarding the ownership of two Mexican condominiums purchased with funds contributed by both spouses.

The appellant claimed he held title to the properties through company shares on resulting trust for the wife in respect of half their value, seeking this arrangement because the properties had declined in value since separation, which would benefit him in the equalization calculation.

The trial judge rejected the resulting trust claim, finding the presumption had been rebutted based on all the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and awarded costs to the respondent.

This is a cost endorsement following a summary judgment motion where the defendants largely succeeded in dismissing most of the plaintiff's claims.

The defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $34,995.66.

The plaintiff proposed a lower amount of $13,135.66.

The court awarded the defendants costs of the summary judgment motion on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $27,000.00, payable within 90 days.

The court rejected the defendants' request for substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct by the plaintiff, and also denied their request to preclude the plaintiff from taking further steps in the litigation pending payment, noting the plaintiff's ongoing entitlement to an accounting of farm profits.

The plaintiff brought an action against her nephew and his wife, claiming a proprietary constructive trust and equitable mortgage over a farm property based on an oral agreement with her late brother to reimburse her for renovation expenses.

The defendants, who inherited the property subject to the plaintiff's life estate, moved for summary judgment.

The court found that while the plaintiff had an enforceable equitable claim against her late brother, the defendants were bona fide purchasers for value without notice.

The court dismissed the claims for a constructive trust, equitable mortgage, and partition and sale, but allowed the plaintiff's claim for an accounting of farm profits based on her life estate to proceed to trial.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action after a 2.5-day trial, the successful defendants sought costs.

The court found no conduct warranting substantial indemnity costs and no relevant offers to settle.

Applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable in line with the losing party's expectations, the court noted the plaintiff's own costs outline was over $44,000.

The court fixed the defendants' costs at $30,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff brought an action against the estate of his deceased former common-law partner, seeking a declaration that he was the beneficial owner of two cottage properties registered in her name.

The parties had executed a cohabitation agreement in 1993 that established a separate property regime.

In 2010, the plaintiff directed that the properties be transferred into the deceased's name.

He alleged that she held them in trust for him, but no written declaration of trust was ever signed.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a trust on a balance of probabilities, noting conflicts in the evidence and the application of the Statute of Frauds.

The action was dismissed.