James Spiroff

Following a passing of accounts application where the respondent beneficiary raised over 150 unsuccessful objections, the applicant estate trustee sought costs against the respondent personally on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that while the respondent's objections were not reasonably necessary for the proper administration of the estate, the applicant's offer to settle lacked any real compromise.

The court ordered the respondent to personally pay $12,500 in costs on a partial indemnity basis, representing the legal fees incurred in response to his objections, with the remaining $39,710.88 payable from the estate.

The estate trustee brought an application to pass the accounts of the estate.

The respondent, a beneficiary and brother of the trustee, raised over 150 objections to the accounts, including challenges to legal fees incurred defending actions he brought against the estate, and expenses for memorializing the deceased in Poland.

The court dismissed all objections, finding the trustee acted reasonably and in good faith.

The accounts were passed, and the trustee was awarded compensation and full indemnification for legal costs from the estate, subject to paying interest on funds she temporarily pre-took for personal use.

The applicant sought declarations of her mother's incapacity to manage property, personal care, and instruct counsel, and an order for a new capacity assessment, as well as removal of her mother's s. 3 counsel.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that previous assessments of incapacity for property and personal care were sufficient and that a further assessment for capacity to instruct counsel was unnecessary and intrusive.

The court affirmed the role of s. 3 counsel and the principle that counsel determines their client's capacity to instruct, absent strong evidence to the contrary.

The defendants moved to transfer the action from Woodstock to Windsor, citing convenience and judicial resources.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing its chosen venue was reasonable and Windsor was not significantly better, and cross-moved for consolidation with three Small Claims Court actions if the transfer was granted.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that Woodstock was a reasonable venue and Windsor was not "significantly better" based on a holistic application of Rule 13.1.02 factors.

Consequently, the plaintiff's cross-motion for consolidation was not addressed.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff, in the cause.

This endorsement addresses cost issues following a summary judgment motion and an allegation of judicial bias raised by the plaintiffs.

The judge declined to recuse himself, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay $25,000 in costs to Thomson Mahoney Delorey (TMD) as per agreement.

However, the Shirley defendants were awarded no costs for the motion, as they had attended on a watching brief without formal participation.

No additional costs were awarded for dealing with the bias allegation.