Jerry W. Switzer

The appellant sought to overturn a trial decision regarding the distribution of life insurance proceeds from a deceased parent's estate.

The policy, initially benefiting both the appellant and the respondent sibling, was later altered to name the respondent as the sole beneficiary as part of estate planning.

The appellant contended that a binding agreement existed to reduce the policy's value and ensure equitable inheritance.

The trial judge found no such agreement, concluding that the parent's intentions for equal treatment had evolved.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or assessment of evidence, thereby upholding the conclusion that the agreement did not mandate a policy reduction or impose a duty on the respondent to disclose decisions regarding the policy's maintenance.

The moving parties sought a stay of a Superior Court order for the sale of real property, pending appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The underlying order stemmed from an application under the Substitute Decisions Act concerning the alleged mismanagement of an incapable person's financial affairs by her attorneys.

The Court applied the three-part RJR-Macdonald test for a stay.

It found that the moving parties failed to demonstrate a serious question to be tried, as they had no plausible grounds of appeal, having failed to attend the lower court hearing or properly engage with the court's powers under the Substitute Decisions Act.

Furthermore, they did not establish irreparable harm, as they did not reside at the property and had minimal financial investment.

The balance of convenience favored the responding party, as the property's maintenance was depleting the incapable person's assets.

Consequently, the motion for a stay was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the responding party.

This decision addresses a refusals motion and an adjournment application brought by George Volk in the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The underlying dispute involves litigation under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, concerning the property of Doris Volk.

Darlene Mussato and Felicia Kowalski, who are appealing an earlier order for the sale of a jointly-owned home, brought a motion to stay that order.

During cross-examination on an affidavit supporting the stay motion, Felicia Kowalski refused to answer several questions.

The court granted George Volk's refusals motion in part, compelling Felicia Kowalski to answer specific categories of questions in writing, and adjourned the stay motion to allow for compliance and further submissions.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming imposed a $1,500 monetary penalty on the appellant licensee for allegedly permitting drunkenness on the premises, contrary to s. 45(1) of O. Reg. 719/90.

An inspector observed a patron who appeared intoxicated, citing slurred speech, unsteadiness, and inappropriate behaviour.

The licensee appealed the order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the evidence insufficient to prove the patron was intoxicated, noting her behaviour could be attributed to her naturally boisterous personality and that the inspector did not speak to the patron or the bartender.

The appeal was allowed and the monetary penalty was set aside.

The appellants appealed a decision interpreting a right-of-way over their cottage property in favour of the respondent's adjacent property.

The appellants argued the right-of-way only permitted maintaining a water pipeline, or alternatively, that the rights should be exercised on the same side of the property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's finding that the instrument created two distinct rights: one for recreational lake access on the east side, and another to use a pump in the boathouse on the west side.

The court declined to rewrite the instrument to combine the rights-of-way.