G. Evans

The applicant, a grandson of the deceased who died intestate, sought a declaration that bank and investment accounts held jointly between the deceased and her surviving son formed part of the estate.

The respondent son argued that the accounts were joint with right of survivorship and therefore passed to him outside the estate.

Applying the presumption of resulting trust articulated in Pecore v. Pecore, the court held that the respondent failed to rebut the presumption with sufficient evidence of the deceased’s intention to gift survivorship rights.

The evidence consisted largely of the respondent’s self‑serving assertions and unsupported bank correspondence, while documentary banking records and other objective indicators of intention were absent.

The court concluded the jointly held funds reverted to the estate and were to be distributed pursuant to the intestacy regime under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The applicant mortgagee brought an interpleader application seeking directions regarding distribution of surplus proceeds from a power of sale after satisfaction of the mortgage and undisputed claims.

Competing claims were made by execution creditors, Legal Aid Ontario under a registered lien, and a party holding a lump sum child support order obtained five days after the closing date of the sale.

The court considered the priority scheme under the Mortgages Act and the Creditors’ Relief Act, as well as authorities addressing timing of encumbrances and support orders.

It held that priority under the Creditors’ Relief Act applies only where a support order exists at the relevant time and cannot retroactively displace encumbrancers whose interests existed at the date of sale.

Because the support order was made after closing, it ranked behind existing execution creditors and liens.

Costs decision following a motion in an estates dispute concerning an objection to an application for a certificate of appointment as estate trustee.

The responding party had been successful on the underlying motion and sought full indemnity costs.

The court considered the applicants’ earlier offer to withdraw the objection without costs and the proportionality of the costs claimed relative to the overall litigation.

Finding that the issues argued on the motion were limited largely to costs and that the respondent’s claimed motion costs were disproportionate, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicants partial costs of the motion.

In an estate dispute involving a notice of objection to probate and related litigation steps, the respondents brought a motion seeking various relief including costs.

The litigation stalled after earlier directions orders requiring documentary production, potential discovery, and appointment of an estate trustee during litigation, none of which were meaningfully completed.

The applicants later attempted to withdraw the matter without costs after concluding the litigation was not economically viable.

The court held that the respondents were the successful party but limited their recoverable costs to the period prior to the applicants’ offer to withdraw without costs.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis with a reduction reflecting both parties’ conduct and failure to efficiently advance the litigation.