James Mitchell Gilmore

The court addresses costs and pre-judgment interest following a trial regarding the administration of the estate of Ciriaco Forgione.

The applicants, Amato and Luisa Forgione, challenged the conduct of the respondent, Anne-Marie Alonzi, as estate trustee and attorney for property.

The court found that Ms. Alonzi was entitled to substantial indemnity costs from the estate, rejecting the applicants' allegations of wrongdoing.

The court declined to award pre-judgment interest to Ms. Alonzi due to her failure to keep proper records, which necessitated the passing of accounts.

This decision concerns the passing of accounts and compensation claims by Anne-Marie Alonzi, attorney and estate trustee for the late Ciriaco Forgione.

The court reviews the factual and legal context of the family dispute, the duties and compensation of attorneys and estate trustees, and the management of the estate’s properties.

The court finds that, despite record-keeping deficiencies and family conflict, Ms. Alonzi and her husband provided exceptional care to Mr. Forgione.

The court reduces compensation for failure to properly account for cash payments but upholds the majority of the claims, recognizing the challenging circumstances and the value of the services provided.

The applicant, Kathleen Ingram, commenced an application seeking dependant's relief under the Succession Law Reform Act and an interest in the estate via constructive/resulting trust.

The respondent, Cherise Charron, in her capacity as estate trustee, brought a motion to dismiss Ingram's claims as statute-barred.

The court found that Ingram's dependant support claim was not entirely statute-barred, as a small portion of the estate remained undistributed.

Crucially, the court held that Ingram's constructive trust claim was governed by the 10-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act, not the 2-year period under the Trustee Act, following the principle of horizontal stare decisis and the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in McConnell v. Huxtable.

Charron's motion to dismiss was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent to sever and minor variance applications.

The applicant sought to sever a lot containing an existing residence surplus to a farm operation as a result of farm consolidation.

The Township argued that a previous severance in 1979 precluded another severance under the farm consolidation policies.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's planning evidence, finding that the policy framework does not limit the number of times a severance can be applied for, provided the criteria are met.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, granting provisional consent subject to conditions and authorizing the minor variances, finding the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, the Growth Plan, and local Official Plans.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to extend the time for service of their Statement of Claim against the defendant for damages arising from an alleged arson.

The claim was served three months after the six-month deadline under Rule 14.08(1).

The court found the delay was minor, explained by the plaintiffs waiting for the conclusion of related criminal proceedings, and did not cause non-compensable prejudice to the defendant.

The motion was granted, time for service was extended, and service was validated.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion to remain in the home she occupied with the deceased, the respondent sought costs of $40,681.76 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found there was divided success, as the applicant had obtained some relief on consent and in a prior appearance.

Considering the narrow scope of the issue, the respondent's unnecessary landlord and tenant proceeding, and the applicant's financial circumstances, the court awarded the respondent reduced costs of $4,000, deferred until after the sale of an estate property.

The applicant sought an interim order to continue residing in a property following the death of her common-law spouse, pending a trial of an issue regarding the estate's potential interest in the property.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the estate did not have a vested interest in the property, which was owned by a third party (the deceased's brother).

The court lacked jurisdiction under the Succession Law Reform Act to grant exclusive possession of property not owned by the estate.

The applicant was ordered to vacate the property by a specified date, with interim directions regarding expenses remaining in effect until then.

The appellant, a mid-sized pullet growing operation, appealed a decision of the Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg & Chick Commission denying its request for an exemption from Policy Direction 59.

Policy 59 revoked a grandfather clause that had previously exempted the appellant from having to obtain additional growing rights.

The Tribunal found that the Commission had engaged in a fair consultative process before adopting Policy 59 and that the appellant failed to show the policy was unfair, discriminatory, or unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.