Jason Dutrizac

Two applications were brought regarding the validity of a $689,000 mortgage registered against two properties owned by the applicant.

The estate of the deceased chargee claimed the mortgage was valid and secured funds allegedly stolen by the applicant's parents, while the applicant claimed she never authorized or knew about the mortgage and that her signature was forged.

The court found that material facts surrounding the execution of the mortgage were in dispute, requiring findings of credibility and potentially expert evidence.

Consequently, the court adjourned the applications and directed that the issues proceed to trial pursuant to Rule 38.10(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Two applications were brought regarding the validity of a $689,000 mortgage registered against two properties owned by the applicant.

The estate of the deceased chargee claimed the mortgage was valid and secured funds allegedly stolen by the applicant's parents, while the applicant claimed she never authorized or knew about the mortgage and that her signature was forged.

The court found that material facts surrounding the execution of the mortgage were in dispute, requiring findings of credibility and potentially expert evidence.

Consequently, the court adjourned the applications and directed that the issues proceed to trial pursuant to Rule 38.10(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicants brought an application seeking an accounting of their late mother's estate, alleging that significant funds were unaccounted for due to questionable transfers by the respondents, who acted as powers of attorney and estate trustees.

The respondents argued the application was barred by a prior consent judgment on a passing of accounts that concluded the estate litigation.

The court agreed with the respondents, finding that the applicants had commissioned a forensic accounting report prior to consenting to the judgment and that allowing the application to proceed would render the consent judgment pointless.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process and foreclosed by the prior judgment.

The parties were unable to agree on costs following a motion and cross-motion in an estate litigation matter.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $26,625.06, while the defendant sought substantial indemnity costs of $25,038.54 or partial indemnity costs of $18,567.56.

The court found that the defendant was the more successful party, having prevailed on the appointment of an estate trustee during litigation and reimbursement of expenses.

The court rejected the plaintiff's request to reserve costs to the trial judge and fixed costs at $10,000 payable by the plaintiff to the defendant.

The plaintiff challenged his late mother's will, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by the defendant.

The plaintiff moved to appoint his ex-wife as the Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL) with powers to sell the deceased's property, while the defendant cross-moved to remove the plaintiff's notices of objection and for reimbursement of estate expenses.

The court maintained the primary notice of objection, appointed a neutral retired lawyer as ETDL with limited powers to preserve the property pending the will challenge, and ordered the estate to reimburse the defendant for expenses incurred.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce personal guarantees signed by the defendants for loans made to a now-bankrupt corporate borrower.

Three of the defendants brought competing summary judgment motions seeking to discharge their guarantees, arguing they lacked independent legal advice and that the bank acted in a commercially unreasonable manner.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion and dismissed the defendants' motions, finding the guarantees valid and enforceable.

The court held that the lack of independent legal advice did not invalidate the guarantees absent unconscionability or misrepresentation, and the express terms of the guarantees precluded the commercially unreasonable realization defence.

The defendants' counterclaims were also dismissed.

The Proposed Intervenors brought a motion for leave to intervene in an application to set aside an arbitration award arising from the receivership of a Ponzi scheme.

The Proposed Intervenors argued they had an interest in the subject matter, would be adversely affected, and shared common questions of law or fact, as they faced similar claims in separate proceedings.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the Proposed Intervenors had no direct interest in the subject matter, would not be adversely affected by the judgment, and would not make a useful contribution without causing injustice or delay to the immediate parties.

Following the dismissal of the Estate's appeal of the Receiver's disallowance of its proof of claim, the successful parties sought costs.

The court awarded costs to the Receiver on a substantial indemnity scale and to the Applicants on a partial indemnity scale.

The court also held the trustee of the Estate personally liable for the costs award, jointly and severally with the Estate, as the trustee initiated the unsuccessful appeal and there was no evidence of estate assets to satisfy the award.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim for defamation, arguing the impugned statements were protected by absolute privilege.

The statements were made in letters of complaint to the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy regarding the conduct of the plaintiffs in their capacity as bankruptcy trustee and associate.

The court found that the Superintendent of Bankruptcy is a quasi-judicial body and that the complaints were protected by absolute privilege.

The court struck the statement of claim and denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend, finding the proposed amendments were legally untenable.