Ian Hull

The applicant brought a motion for directions in an estate dispute, seeking the production of the deceased's medical, solicitor, and police records, as well as leave to examine the deceased's solicitors.

The applicant challenged a 2022 codicil that appointed the respondent as sole estate trustee, alleging lack of capacity and undue influence.

The court dismissed the request for additional medical records, finding no evidence to support a fishing expedition.

The court partially granted the request for solicitor records, ordering production of the 2019 estate planning file but protecting files related to a 2006 fraud action and a 2009 will.

The court also ordered the production of unredacted police records regarding domestic disputes at the deceased's home.

The parties separated after a 32-year marriage.

The applicant's father had established a highly successful business.

Before the marriage, the father settled a trust holding shares in the business for the applicant.

During the marriage, the applicant received the shares and later participated in an estate freeze, transferring the shares to a holding company in exchange for preferred shares, while a new trust (the NFT) acquired the common shares.

The applicant and her children were discretionary beneficiaries of the NFT.

The main issue was whether the applicant's interest in the NFT was property subject to equalization, and if so, whether it was excluded as a gift.

The court found the interest was property, but bound by the Court of Appeal's decision in Shinder v. Shinder, held it was an excluded gift.

The court also determined the valuation of various assets, dismissed the respondent's unjust enrichment claim to a cottage, and ordered the applicant to pay an equalization payment of $1.18M and needs-based spousal support of $25,649 per month.

The plaintiff, the deceased's spouse of 20 years, brought a dependant's support claim under Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The deceased's Will left 40% of the residue of his estate to the plaintiff and 60% to three of his adult children.

The plaintiff argued this provision was inadequate to maintain her accustomed lifestyle and sought the entirety of the estate.

The court found that the deceased did not make adequate provision for the plaintiff's proper support.

After analyzing expert evidence on the plaintiff's lifestyle expenses and life expectancy, the court ordered a lump sum payment of $2,556,871.00 (or 40% of the final residue, whichever is greater) to provide for her housing and future needs, while preserving the deceased's testamentary intention to benefit his children.

The applicant brought a motion to appoint replacement estate trustees for the estate of her late husband, following the resignation of the previous trustees amidst a highly fractious family dispute.

The applicant sought the appointment of three family members, while the responding parties sought the appointment of a neutral third party, either Scotiatrust or a senior lawyer.

The court found that the extreme animosity between the two family camps necessitated a neutral institutional trustee to prevent further litigation and ensure the estate's administration.

Scotiatrust was appointed as the Estate Trustee During Litigation.

The four Libfeld brothers, equal owners of The Conservatory Group (a multi-billion dollar real estate development business), experienced a complete and irreparable breakdown of their personal and professional relationships.

The applicants sought various remedies including a restructuring protocol or a restricted wind-up, while the respondents sought a buy-sell process or a structured buyout.

The court found no actionable oppression by any party, attributing the disputes to extreme mutual dysfunction.

Concluding that the brothers could no longer work together and that none of their proposed remedies were workable or fair, the court ordered a court-supervised wind-up and sale of the business under the OBCA and Partnerships Act, permitting all brothers to participate as bidders.

The four Libfeld brothers, equal owners of The Conservatory Group (a multi-billion dollar real estate development business), experienced a complete and irreparable breakdown of their personal and professional relationships.

The applicants sought various remedies including a restructuring protocol or a restricted wind-up, while the respondents sought a buy-sell process or a structured buyout.

The court found no actionable oppression by any party, attributing the disputes to extreme mutual dysfunction.

Concluding that the brothers could no longer work together and that none of their proposed remedies were workable or fair, the court ordered a court-supervised wind-up and sale of the business under the OBCA and Partnerships Act, permitting all brothers to participate as bidders.

In a will challenge action, the defendant estate trustees moved under Rule 21(1)(a) to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim that the deceased's wills were void for violating public policy on the basis of gender discrimination.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the defendants could not resile from a prior consent order directing a trial on that issue.

On the issue of disclosure, the court limited the plaintiffs' broad requests for financial and corporate records, ordering production only of documents relevant to the will challenge between 1998 and 2003.

The plaintiffs' cross-motion for costs thrown away was dismissed, but they were awarded $5,000 in costs for responding to the reconstituted motion.

The applicant, a trustee and settlor of a family trust, sought to recover over $1 million from the trust for the 1993 transfer of a farm property, construction costs, and maintenance expenses.

The respondent beneficiaries opposed the claims and sought the removal of the trustees.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the applicant's financial claims, finding them to be either undocumented gifts or barred by the expired limitation periods.

The court ordered two beneficiaries to pay arrears for rent and utilities, and ordered one to vacate the property due to serious breaches of her tenancy agreement.

Finally, the court removed all three trustees for failing to properly administer the trust and protect the beneficiaries' interests, ordering their replacement by a professional third-party trustee.

In an ongoing estate dispute between a widow and her children, the applicant widow brought a motion to add two corporate parties, admit a late affidavit regarding her health, substitute written interrogatories for oral cross-examination, and determine the scope of cross-examination.

The court added the corporate parties, finding one to be a necessary party.

The court admitted the late affidavit but excluded the attached medical reports as inadmissible hearsay.

The court declined to dispense with oral cross-examination, finding insufficient evidence of serious harm, but ordered specific accommodations for the 93-year-old applicant.

Finally, the court limited the scope of cross-examination to the three issues previously deemed urgent to conserve judicial resources.

Following a successful motion by certain beneficiaries to strike a will challenge on the basis of estoppel, the court determined costs arising from the motion.

The unsuccessful parties argued that costs should be paid from the estate due to the alleged novelty of applying estoppel to bar a will challenge within the limitation period and contended the claimed costs were excessive.

The court rejected that position, emphasizing the modern principle that estate litigation costs are not automatically payable from the estate.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01 and the Courts of Justice Act, the court fixed partial indemnity costs for the successful moving parties and reduced certain billed amounts for duplication and excess.

Costs were ordered payable personally by the unsuccessful challengers rather than from estate assets.

The moving parties sought to strike a will challenge brought by an estate trustee and her son concerning the validity of the deceased’s 2010 primary and secondary wills.

The estate trustee had administered aspects of the estate for over a year, including paying significant estate taxes, relying on the wills in dealings with third parties, and exercising authority as estate trustee.

The court held that her conduct created an assumption among the parties that the wills were valid and that others relied on that assumption to their detriment, particularly in relation to complex estate planning transactions and tax consequences arising from an estate freeze.

Applying the doctrines of estoppel by representation and estoppel by convention, the court concluded that the estate trustee was barred from challenging the wills.

The son’s parallel challenge was also struck because he lacked independent knowledge of the estate and acted as a proxy for the trustee.