Gillian Charlotte Fournie

The applicant, Carol Bellamy, a co-Estate Trustee, brought an application for the passing of accounts for the Estate of Jean Ann Ruston.

The respondent, Carolyn Thompson, the sole beneficiary and co-Trustee, raised numerous objections regarding excessive payments to Carol and her husband, Ron Bellamy, and mismanagement of estate funds, including speculative investments.

The court dismissed Carol's defenses of laches and acquiescence, finding her fiduciary duties to the sole beneficiary paramount.

The court ordered Carol to repay $318,918.27 to the Estate for excessive compensation and reimbursements, and directed several other objections to proceed to trial due to insufficient documentation and credibility issues.

The estate trustees moved to stay an Ontario dependant support application brought by the deceased's common law spouse, arguing Ontario lacked jurisdiction or, alternatively, that Monaco was the more convenient forum.

The court held Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter because of connecting factors including an Ontario-resident estate trustee, an Ontario bank account, and the will's choice of Ontario law.

Applying the forum non conveniens analysis, however, the court found Monaco was clearly the more appropriate forum given the location of the estate assets, witnesses, documents, estate administration, and the relationship giving rise to dependency.

The Ontario application was stayed, with leave to seek to lift the stay if the Monaco court refuses to acknowledge or apply the Succession Law Reform Act.

Costs of $30,000 were awarded to the moving parties.

The defendants' solicitor of record brought a motion to be removed due to a complete breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

The defendant, acting in person, agreed with the removal and orally requested an adjournment of the upcoming trial to retain new counsel.

The 90-year-old plaintiff opposed the adjournment due to prejudice from delay.

The court granted the motion to remove the solicitor and adjourned the trial, but ordered an interim distribution of $90,000 from the estate to the plaintiff to mitigate prejudice.

The applicant brought a motion for a finding of contempt against the respondent, an estate trustee.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding the respondent had made good faith efforts to comply with a previous order.

The court then considered costs, noting the respondent's offer to settle closely matched the decision.

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's partial and substantial indemnity costs, totaling $21,766.76.

The court declined to order the estate to pay the remainder of the respondent's full indemnity costs, citing some faults on the respondent's part, but primarily emphasizing the unnecessary nature of the applicant's motion.

Following a reference regarding a partnership dispute and an application for partition and sale, the applicant sought costs.

The court determined that the costs of the partition application benefited all partners and ordered them paid from the partnership's net sale proceeds on a partial indemnity basis.

For the reference, the court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs against one respondent and substantial indemnity costs against the other respondent from the date of an unaccepted offer to settle.

The applicant and respondents were equal partners in a mixed-use commercial and residential property.

Following a court-ordered sale of the property, a reference was held to conduct an accounting of expenses and profits to determine the distribution of the net sale proceeds.

The court determined the partners' respective liabilities for rental arrears, renovation cost overruns, ongoing property expenses paid by the applicant, and equipment removal costs.

Applying the Partnership Act, the court found that the renovation and property expenses were partnership debts to be shared equally, while specific rental arrears and equipment removal costs were personal to the respective respondents.

The net proceeds of $396,824.51 were distributed accordingly, with the applicant receiving the majority share due to her significant financial contributions to the property's expenses.

Following the death of their mother, two sisters engaged in protracted and acrimonious estate litigation involving allegations of fraud and undue influence.

The parties eventually settled all substantive issues at mediation, agreeing to divide the estate equally, but left the issue of costs to be determined by the court.

The court found that the plaintiff had unreasonably escalated the litigation and ignored reasonable settlement offers.

Finding exceptional circumstances that justified a costs award despite the settlement, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay $75,000 in costs to the defendant.

In an addendum to previous reasons ordering a buyout of certain members of a corporation, the court addressed disputed terms of the buyout order.

The court determined that the boundaries of severed and retained parcels did not require further input, as the total property value would dictate payouts.

The court also ruled that costs, including commissions, closing costs, and capital gains taxes related to the sale of severed parcels, must be borne by the departing members who benefit from those sales.

A request for interim distributions was denied due to practical uncertainties and tax liabilities.

The Lash family owned a 30-acre cottage property through a non-profit corporation, Lash Point Association Corp. (LPAC).

A dispute arose between family members who wanted to sell their interests and leave (the leave camp) and those who wanted to keep the property for future generations (the remain camp).

The leave camp applied to wind up the corporation and sell the entire property, while the remain camp proposed a court-ordered buyout of the departing members funded by the sale of severed parcels.

The court dismissed the winding up application, finding that a buyout was a viable alternative that would allow departing members to receive fair market value while preserving the corporation's purpose for the remaining members.

The court appointed a receiver to implement the buyout process.

Motion seeking approval of Minutes of Settlement under Rule 7.08(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of a mentally incapable adult and for judgment implementing the settlement terms between her three sons.

The settlement arose from mediation resolving disputes concerning a family trust and a prior transfer of Spanish real property.

A dispute later arose regarding the wording of an acknowledgement required by the settlement, leading one party to withdraw a prior approval motion and threaten to resile from the agreement.

The court found the refusal to accept the original wording and withdrawal of the approval motion unreasonable, concluding it necessitated the moving party’s motion to finalize approval.

The settlement was approved and costs were awarded to the moving party, with part payable personally by the party whose conduct caused the additional proceedings.