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.