Gomery J.A.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his civil action against an investigator appointed by the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario.

The motion judge had dismissed the action as an abuse of process and an impermissible collateral attack on a professional discipline decision.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision, including the denial of an adjournment request.

The appeal was dismissed with partial indemnity costs.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision that refused to remove the respondent as estate trustee and interpreted a hotchpot clause in the deceased's wills.

On appeal, the appellants conceded that the motion judge's interpretation of the hotchpot clause was correct, but argued she erred by failing to address the disposition of certain holding company shares and by refusing to remove the trustee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the share issue was not properly before the court and that the motion judge's refusal to remove the trustee was entitled to deference.

The court found that the motion judge had addressed conflict concerns through reasonable and practical directions.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice which refused to set aside a registrar's dismissal of his action for delay.

The appellant argued that the motion judge erred in her assessment of his explanation for the delay, whether the delay was inadvertent, and the prejudice to the respondents.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's application of the governing legal principles or her findings of fact, noting that she properly balanced the competing interests of deciding cases on their merits and ensuring timely resolution.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and awarded agreed-upon costs to the respondents.

The respondent brought a motion to quash the appellant's appeal of an order interpreting section 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted the motion, finding that the underlying order was interlocutory because it did not resolve the core issues in dispute, such as the validation of the electronic document or the deceased's testamentary capacity.

The court also declined to reconstitute itself as the Divisional Court to hear an application for leave to appeal.

By agreement of the parties, no costs were awarded.