James Dilworth

The appellant appealed a judgment interpreting the will of Eleanor Martha Devonport.

The application judge found that a specific bequest of the Hopewell Avenue property to the testator's predeceased son passed to the son's wife pursuant to section 31 of the Succession Law Reform Act (the anti-lapse provision), rather than lapsing into the residue of the estate.

The appellant argued the will showed a contrary intention and that the solicitor's evidence should have been admitted.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's interpretation of the anti-lapse provision or the will's terms.

The court also upheld the occupation rent requirement, finding it was properly raised and calculated.

The court considered whether to recognize and enforce a UK court order appointing deputies for the property and affairs of Marija Jurate Danilunas, who resides in England but has significant assets in Ontario.

The applicants sought either full recognition of the UK order or, alternatively, an ancillary order permitting them to access and use Ms. Danilunas’s Ontario assets.

The court reviewed the statutory and common law framework for recognition of foreign guardianship orders, the competing values of autonomy and protection of the vulnerable, and the public policy implications.

Ultimately, the court recognized and enforced the UK order, finding that the process and protections in the UK were sufficiently robust and that no public policy or procedural concerns justified refusing recognition.

The applicants sought enforcement in Ontario of an English court order appointing them as deputies for Marija Jurate Danilunas, or alternatively, appointment as guardians under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992.

The court reviewed the evidentiary and legal requirements for recognition of foreign capacity orders, noting the lack of medical evidence and the absence of a statutory regime for automatic recognition of such orders from England.

The court raised several questions regarding the appropriate legal test for recognition of foreign in rem capacity orders, the role of public policy, and the need for further submissions from the parties and potentially interested intervenors.

No final order was made, and the matter was set for further case management.