Jason Shelly

The applicant, acting as litigation guardian for the deceased's two children, brought an application to remove the respondent as the estate trustee.

The respondent, who was the deceased's former common-law partner, had continued to occupy the deceased's home, used estate assets, and improperly claimed pension survivor benefits despite having separated from the deceased prior to her death.

The court found that the totality of the respondent's actions, including his hostility toward the beneficiaries and potential conflicts of interest regarding estate debts, raised real concerns about his ability to carry out his fiduciary duties.

The application was granted, the respondent was removed, and the alternate trustees named in the will were appointed.

A municipality sought a costs award of approximately $93,000 in relation to an application concerning enforcement orders under the Building Code Act, 1992 tied to the conversion of a former school into a retirement residence.

The application had not been finally adjudicated and most issues appeared to have been resolved without substantive judicial determination after the eventual issuance of a building permit.

The court held that entitlement to costs requires findings regarding success and the parties’ conduct, which were absent due to the lack of adjudication on the merits and limited judicial involvement.

Given the possibility that the matter resolved through compromise and the absence of clear success by either party, the court declined to exercise its discretion to award costs.

The municipality’s motion for costs was therefore dismissed.

The defendants, a municipality and its by-law enforcement officer, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a negligence action arising from enforcement of a property standards by-law.

The plaintiff alleged the officer acted negligently and excessively in ordering removal of materials from his property and entering the land without a warrant.

The court held that municipal officers are immune from liability for acts performed in good faith under the Municipal Act and found no evidence of bad faith or breach of duty of care.

The defendants demonstrated that enforcement steps were authorized by statute and taken in response to a complaint, and the plaintiff failed to provide evidence supporting allegations of misconduct.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action.