Heather Hogan

The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company, as Estate Trustee, sought court advice on interpreting a 1957 will establishing a charitable remainder trust.

The will's language was unclear regarding income beneficiaries among the Testator's grandchildren and the trust's administration.

The court determined that only Betty Burnett and Kathryn Baker were entitled to income, not Rosalie Anita Grimes or Robert Alan Jackson, due to specific conditions in the will regarding the number of children of the Testator's son.

The court also confirmed the trust's perpetual charitable nature, ruling against any wind-up or variation for the benefit of descendants without the Public Guardian and Trustee's consent, which was not given.

The applicants, estate trustees, sought directions regarding the distribution of a lapsed charitable gift in the will of Anna Salnikova.

The deceased had bequeathed 20% of her estate's residue to a charity that no longer exists.

The applicants proposed distributing this portion pro-rata among the other 19 named charities, effectively treating it as an intestacy.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) argued for the application of the cy-pres doctrine, directing the gift to a charity with similar charitable objects.

The court found that the will demonstrated a general charitable intent, particularly given that 95% of the estate was gifted to charities and the specific importance of the lapsed gift's purpose (orphans in South America).

Consequently, the court applied the cy-pres doctrine, rejecting the applicants' intestacy argument and ordering the PGT to identify suitable nominee charities.

The applicant brought a motion to prove a holograph will in solemn form and to be appointed Estate Trustee without an administration bond.

The deceased, who had terminal cancer, wrote a brief note in Farsi leaving his wealth to the applicant, his close friend and caregiver.

The court found the document to be a valid holograph will under section 6 of the Succession Law Reform Act.

However, the court dismissed the motion to dispense with the administration bond without prejudice, citing inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence regarding the value of the estate and its debts.

The applicant, George Chuvalo, brought a family law proceeding.

The respondent wife argued that the proceedings should be stayed under s. 10(2) of the Divorce Act to allow for reconciliation.

The court held a trial on the threshold issue of whether the applicant had the capacity to decide to reconcile or divorce.

Relying on expert medical evidence, the court found that the applicant lacked the capacity to decide whether to reconcile, as he could not appreciate the consequences of such a decision.

The Public Guardian and Trustee was appointed as his litigation guardian.

The applicant husband brought an equalization claim and sought to set aside the transfer of his wife's home to her adopted son, alleging undue influence and breach of fiduciary duty.

The wife, who suffered from cognitive decline and was represented by the Public Guardian and Trustee, had granted the son a power of attorney and added him to her bank accounts following her sister's death.

The court found the son stood in a fiduciary relationship with his vulnerable mother and failed to rebut the presumption of undue influence regarding the property transfer.

The transfer was set aside, and the son was ordered to repay $322,319.81 for unaccounted cash withdrawals, a line of credit, and a mortgage he placed on the property.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT), acting as litigation guardian for the plaintiff, Ki Ho Kim, brought a motion for court approval of a settlement to dismiss the action without costs.

Ki Ho Kim opposed the settlement, asserting he was no longer a party under disability.

The court reviewed multiple capacity assessments, all affirming Kim's mental incapacity.

The court dismissed Kim's motion to set aside the PGT's appointment, citing *res judicata* and his lack of standing.

The court approved the settlement, finding no viable cause of action against the Toronto Police Services Board and concluding that dismissal without costs was in Kim's best interests.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT), as litigation guardian for the plaintiff, Ki Ho Kim, brought a motion for court approval of a $25,000 settlement in a slip and fall action.

Kim opposed the settlement and sought to set aside a prior order appointing the PGT as his litigation guardian, arguing he was no longer under disability.

The court reviewed multiple capacity assessments, all confirming Kim's mental incapacity.

The court dismissed Kim's motion, affirming his status as a party under disability and the PGT's authority.

The court then approved the proposed settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in Kim's best interests, and ordered the distribution of funds.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT), as litigation guardian for the plaintiff, Ki Ho Kim, sought court approval for a $10,000 settlement.

Kim opposed the settlement, arguing he was no longer a party under disability and did not require a litigation guardian.

The court reviewed multiple capacity assessments, all of which concluded Kim was mentally incapable.

The court dismissed Kim's motion to set aside the prior order appointing the PGT, citing lack of standing and *res judicata*.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the plaintiff's best interests, and ordered previous cost orders against the plaintiff to be set aside.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT), as litigation guardian for the plaintiff, Ki Ho Kim, brought a motion for court approval of a $23,500 settlement in a slip and fall action.

Kim opposed the settlement and brought a cross-motion asserting he was no longer a party under disability and did not require a litigation guardian.

The court reviewed multiple capacity assessments, all of which concluded Kim was mentally incapable.

The court dismissed Kim's motion to set aside the prior order appointing the PGT as litigation guardian, citing lack of standing and *res judicata*.

The court approved the proposed settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in Kim's best interests, and ordered the distribution of funds.

The plaintiff brought a motion for directions in an estate matter.

The only remaining issue to be decided was costs.

The court found that the motion should never have been brought and was the result of an aggressive, unreasonable, uncompromising, and shifting strategy adopted by the plaintiff's counsel.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondents, noting that counsel's actions resulted in significant unnecessary costs.

In contentious estate litigation, the applicant brought a broad motion seeking numerous procedural and substantive orders relating to the administration of an estate, production of records, and interim support.

The court found the litigation had become highly acrimonious and expensive, warranting active case management and intervention to regularize the proceedings.

Orders were made requiring the respondents to pass accounts, appointing an estate trustee during litigation, compelling production of medical and solicitor records relevant to testamentary capacity, permitting amendment of the application to determine the deceased’s last will, and directing an organized exchange of productions.

The court also granted the applicant an interim funding order from the estate for legal expenses.

Contempt motions brought by both sides were dismissed.

The applicant, a common‑law spouse of the deceased, brought a motion within a dependant’s support application under Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act seeking interim legal fees and expert disbursements payable from the estate.

The estate trustees opposed the request, arguing that the applicant had sufficient income following an interim support order and that a non‑dissipation clause limited the estate’s ability to fund litigation.

The court reviewed the equitable jurisdiction to award interim costs and the criteria from Okanagan Indian Band requiring financial need, a prima facie meritorious claim, and special circumstances.

The court found the applicant financially constrained, facing significant legal expenses, and advancing a meritorious claim for dependant’s relief following a lengthy common‑law relationship.

Interim costs of $50,000 on a partial indemnity basis and up to $10,000 for expert valuation disbursements were ordered payable from the estate, subject to accounting and possible adjustment by the trial judge.