Jean-Pierre Quintal

The appellant, Nancy Johnson, appealed the dismissal of her application to prove her mother's 2015 will in solemn form and sought leave to appeal a costs award.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding no error in the application of the Neuberger framework.

The application judge correctly determined that the appellant failed to meet the minimal evidentiary threshold to call into question the will's validity or the testator's capacity, and that the respondents successfully answered any challenge.

The court also affirmed the costs award, reiterating that estate litigation is subject to general costs rules and that the appellant's case did not warrant an exception for costs to be paid from the estate.

Following the dismissal of an application challenging a will based on testamentary capacity, the court determined costs.

The applicant argued that public policy considerations in estate litigation justified having her costs paid by the estate.

The court rejected this argument, finding the applicant's concerns about capacity were unfounded and her disinheritance was rational.

The applicant was ordered to pay the successful respondent's costs on a partial indemnity basis, with any shortfall to be indemnified by the estate.

The applicant sought disclosure of medical and legal records relating to her late mother's estate, alleging suspicious circumstances and lack of capacity surrounding a 2015 will that disinherited her.

The executor provided evidence that the mother changed her will after discovering the applicant had improperly transferred joint investment accounts while acting as her attorney for property.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet the minimal evidentiary threshold required to put the estate to the burden of proving the will in solemn form.

The moving party landlord brought a motion to discharge several construction liens registered against its property, arguing it was not an 'owner' under the Construction Lien Act because the work was requested by its bankrupt tenant.

The court found that the landlord and tenant were connected through common directors, officers, and legal counsel, and the landlord had paid substantial amounts for leasehold improvements.

The court dismissed the motion, concluding there was a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the landlord's status as an owner.

A case conference was held in a family law proceeding.

The court issued procedural orders requiring both parties to exchange financial disclosure, medical records, and information regarding the children's activities.

The applicant was granted leave to bring a motion for interim custody and sale of the matrimonial home, provided he fulfills his disclosure obligations first.

The court also established communication protocols for the children's medical appointments and directed the scheduling of a further case conference.

The applicant brought a motion to strike allegations in the respondent's affidavit regarding the applicant's dual citizenship and the children's eligibility for foreign passports.

The applicant argued the allegations were untrue.

The court dismissed the motion, noting that the statements were mere allegations, not directly related to the core issues of custody and support, and that allegations in an affidavit are not struck simply because they are contested.

The applicant was ordered to pay costs of $250.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's ruling excluding similar fact evidence and the resulting severance ruling.

The trial judge had applied the test for similar fact evidence, requiring a high degree of similarity because identity was in issue.

The Court of Appeal found no error of law or jurisdiction in the trial judge's exercise of discretion to weigh the probative value against the prejudicial effect.

The appeal was dismissed.