Jaye Hooper

The Estate Trustee sought directions from the court regarding the interpretation and distribution of two estates following the murder of the testators by their adopted son.

The central issue was the application of the criminal forfeiture rule (slayer rule) and whether the estates should be held in trust for the murderer's potential unborn children or accelerated to alternate beneficiaries.

The court applied the implied intention approach, ruling that the murderer was disentitled from any benefit.

It further determined that the gifts to the murderer's unborn issue should also fail due to public policy and the absence of living issue at the time of disentitlement, thereby accelerating the distribution of the estates to the next lineal beneficiaries (the testatrix's brothers), subject to specific annuity provisions.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing her Superior Court action under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant's original Small Claims Court action had been dismissed after a seven-day trial.

She sought to appeal to the Divisional Court but was out of time, and her motion for an extension of time was refused.

The Court of Appeal found that the new Superior Court action was an attempt to relitigate the same issues previously determined and that the respondent had standing to bring the Rule 2.1 motion.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The moving party, a defendant in multiple actions arising from a fatal motor vehicle collision, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the claims against him.

The collision occurred when the respondent lost control of his vehicle while attempting to pass and crossed into the moving party's lane.

The moving party relied on expert evidence suggesting his reaction time was within normal limits, while the respondents relied on expert evidence arguing he braked late.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the conflicting expert evidence and its admissibility required a full trial with viva voce evidence and cross-examination to justly determine liability.

The plaintiff brought a motion for partial summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action seeking findings that he was wrongfully dismissed, the determination of a reasonable notice period, and damages for pay in lieu of notice.

The defendant employer argued that the dismissal was for just cause and that multiple factual disputes required a trial.

The court reviewed the summary judgment framework under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the guidance from Hryniak v. Mauldin regarding fair and proportionate adjudication.

The court held that genuine issues requiring trial existed, including disputes regarding workplace misconduct, warnings, after-acquired cause, and mitigation.

Because resolution would require credibility findings and testimony from multiple witnesses, summary judgment was inappropriate.

Following litigation concerning the resignation of a trustee and the mechanism for appointing replacement trustees under a family trust, the court determined the issue of costs.

Competing groups of beneficiaries had disputed whether the court should appoint an institutional trustee or whether the mechanism set out in the testator’s will should govern.

Although one group succeeded on the substantive issue, the court held the cross-application seeking an independent trustee was reasonably necessary to ensure proper administration of the estate.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principles governing estate litigation costs, the court concluded that fairness and the importance of the issues justified payment of most parties’ costs from the estate.

The court fixed specific amounts payable to each party.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 37.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a registrar’s administrative dismissal of a personal injury action for delay.

The court reviewed the contextual factors governing reinstatement of dismissed actions, including promptness of the motion, explanation for delay, inadvertence, abandonment of the claim, and prejudice to the defendants.

Although the explanations for litigation delay were weak, the court found evidence that the plaintiff continued to pursue the action through efforts to answer undertakings and had not abandoned the claim.

The defendants’ evidence of prejudice, including alleged fading memories, was found to be vague and insufficient to outweigh the interests of justice in determining the matter on its merits.

The registrar’s dismissal order was therefore set aside and the action permitted to proceed subject to an expedited timetable.

The applicant sought to resign as trustee of a family trust.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer brought a cross-application to appoint a new independent trustee, arguing that the settlor's children, who intended to appoint themselves as trustees pursuant to the trust agreement, had abused their discretion as directors of the trust's holding company.

The court found no evidence of abuse of discretion that would justify interfering under s. 5(1) of the Trustee Act, and held that the executors could appoint the next trustees pursuant to the trust agreement.