Hartley M. Isenberg

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs' self-represented statement of claim, which alleged false arrest, malicious prosecution, and other torts arising from a high-profile arrest related to an alleged prostitution ring.

The court struck the claim against the Attorney General of Canada without leave to amend, finding no tenable cause of action.

The court also struck the claim against the RCMP due to pleading deficiencies, but granted the plaintiffs leave to deliver a fresh as amended statement of claim to properly particularize their causes of action.

Costs decision following a lengthy will challenge trial.

Although the plaintiff ultimately proved the validity of the will and became executor and principal beneficiary, the court found the defendants had reasonable grounds to challenge the will due to numerous suspicious circumstances and the plaintiff’s own conduct.

Applying Rule 57.01 and the modern estates litigation approach, the court held that the usual “loser pays” principle may yield where there is a reasonable basis to question testamentary capacity or execution.

Given the suspicious circumstances and litigation conduct, it was appropriate for the estate to bear the litigation costs.

The court fixed costs for the plaintiff and defendants at specified amounts payable from the estate.

The plaintiff son sought to propound his father's last will, which left the bulk of the estate to him and only $1,000 to each of his five defendant sisters.

The sisters challenged the will on the grounds of lack of due execution, undue influence, and lack of testamentary capacity, pointing to suspicious circumstances including the son's involvement in arranging the will with an unknown lawyer.

The court found that while suspicious circumstances existed, the son successfully proved on a balance of probabilities that the father had testamentary capacity and knew and approved of the will's contents.

The court ordered that a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee with a will may issue.

The moving defendant sought a stay of the action against one corporate plaintiff on the basis that the corporation had failed to comply with statutory filing obligations.

Evidence established that the corporation had not filed its initial return, annual returns, or several income tax returns as required under the Corporations Information Act.

Under s. 18(1) of that Act, a corporation in default of required filings lacks the capacity to maintain a proceeding in an Ontario court without leave.

The court found the corporation had provided no explanation for its defaults and had not sought leave to continue the action.

The action was therefore stayed as against that plaintiff under s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act until further order.