Holly LeValliant

The appellant appealed a lower court's decision, challenging the admissibility of a recording and the finding that a joint tenancy had been severed.

The Court of Appeal rejected the argument regarding the recording's inadmissibility, finding it relevant and admissible.

The court also found no basis to interfere with the application judge's decision on joint tenancy severance, as it was a fact-specific inquiry.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the estate, noting the litigation was necessitated by the deceased's actions.

The applicant and respondent, siblings, engaged in a dispute over their mother and sister's properties and the respondent's management as attorney for property.

Both incapable parties resided in long-term care.

The applicant sought an order for the respondent to pass her accounts and to reverse the severance of a joint tenancy, while the respondent sought to enforce a mediated settlement.

The court declined to enforce the settlement as it prejudiced the incapable parties, refused to order a passing of accounts to preserve limited funds, and ordered the sale of the properties to fund the incapable parties' ongoing care, applying the anti-ademption provisions of the Substitute Decisions Act to the proceeds.

This costs endorsement followed a successful application for the appointment of a receiver/manager, recognition of share entitlement, and transfer of a mortgage interest.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were justified against two respondents because their litigation conduct, including non-compliance with a consent order, provision of false information, and misuse of corporate assets, was reprehensible.

A third respondent, while unsuccessful, was ordered to pay only partial indemnity costs because the misconduct of the principal actor could not be attributed to her personally.

The court also reduced the fees claimed as excessive and disproportionate, but allowed substantial BDO investigation accounts as disbursements against the two culpable respondents.

The applicants sought broad interim and substantive relief arising from alleged diversion of corporate funds, oppressive conduct, and disputed ownership interests in two related companies holding and operating a commercial self-storage business.

The court found the principal respondent's evidence not credible, accepted evidence that substantial corporate funds had been removed for personal use, and held that appointment of a receiver-manager over one corporation was just and convenient under s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act and appropriate under the oppression remedy in s. 248(3) of the Business Corporations Act.

The court also declared that one applicant remained entitled to 50% of the issued shares of the corporation and ordered transfer of the Dura Mortgage to that applicant.

Requests for immediate separation of the related company, debt judgment, and restitutionary judgments were dismissed as premature or unsupported at this stage, without prejudice where specified.

The applicant brought an application for directions under Rule 75.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to challenge the validity of a will and codicils based on undue influence and lack of capacity.

The respondents moved for summary judgment to dismiss the application, arguing the underlying claims were statute-barred.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, holding that such a motion is generally not available in an application unless specifically authorized by a procedural order, and that the court could not achieve a full appreciation of the evidence at this early stage.

The applicant brought a motion for partial summary judgment in an estates application seeking declarations that a will and codicils were invalid due to undue influence and that certain joint assets formed part of the estate.

The motion sought a determination that any claims against the respondents regarding their handling of assets received by right of survivorship or as designated beneficiaries were barred by operation of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The respondents argued that the application implicitly sought relief against them, including declarations of breach of fiduciary duty and an order requiring remedy.

The court expressed concerns regarding the appropriateness of the motion in the context of the relief sought in the application.

The court directed the parties to appear at a further hearing to address those concerns before determining the motion.