Jessica L. Karjanmaa

The applicants challenged the validity of a purported will dated September 10, 2020, allegedly made by Kenneth Ryan Hill, a wealthy status Indian and permanent resident of the Six Nations of the Grand River Reserve.

The will named the respondent, Mr. Hill's son, as executor and left his interest in Grand River Enterprises (worth approximately $38 million) to him, with bequests of $5 million to each of his other children (except two who received nothing or $3 million).

The applicants argued that Mr. Hill did not sign the will and did not know and approve of its contents.

The court found that the respondent failed to establish that Mr. Hill signed the purported will and that suspicious circumstances surrounded its execution.

The court also found that the respondent failed to prove that Mr. Hill knew and approved of the will's contents.

The purported will was declared invalid both under the Indian Act and at common law.

The applicant, husband of the deceased, sought an order compelling the respondents to answer refusals and provide better answers to undertakings given during cross-examinations in an estate application challenging a will and various transfers.

The applicant narrowed his motion to focus on communications-related refusals.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the broad, unlimited requests for all communications were not relevant and overly broad.

Where more limited requests had been made, the respondents had already provided substantive answers or produced documents where found.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the successful respondents.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Robert and Catherine Hurst, who challenged their removal as estate trustees of the Estate of Ruth Eileen Stevens MacBeth.

The court upheld the motion judge’s discretionary decisions to deny an adjournment, remove the Hursts as trustees, and order a $50,000 holdback from the estate.

The court found no error in the motion judge’s application of the legal tests and awarded costs against the appellants personally, concluding the appeal was unnecessary and not in the interests of the estate.

Grand River Enterprises Six Nations Ltd. (GRE) appealed an order from the Superior Court of Justice requiring it, as a non-party, to produce financial documents for the valuation of shares held by a deceased in estates litigation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motions judge's discretionary decision.

The court found the documents relevant to the estate's valuation and the validity of the deceased's will, and that it would be unfair to proceed to trial without them.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motions judge's application of the Rule 30.10 test, emphasizing deference to the lower court's discretion and the effectiveness of the established Confidentiality Protocol in addressing GRE's concerns about privacy and business interests.

The applicant, Millie Reville, sought to validate a 2019 will naming her as the estate trustee and primary beneficiary of Mark Weeks' estate, claiming to be his common-law spouse.

The respondent, Vania Weeks, the deceased's separated spouse and estate trustee under a 2008 will, challenged the 2019 will's validity, alleging it was not properly signed or was procured by undue influence.

The court heard oral testimony from the 2019 will's witnesses and considered expert forensic document examiner reports.

The court found the 2019 will was duly executed and dismissed the undue influence claim.

The applicant was appointed estate trustee, and the respondent was ordered to return estate property and reimburse funds improperly disbursed.

This motion concerned the removal of RSM Canada Limited as the Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL) of the Estate of Peter Trezzi and as the court-appointed Manager of two corporations.

The moving party, Albert Trezzi, also sought the appointment of himself and his two sisters as Estate Trustees.

RSM did not oppose its discharge but sought a holdback for professional fees related to a pending passing of accounts.

The court granted the removal of RSM and the appointment of the new Estate Trustees, and ordered a holdback of $250,000 for RSM's fees, finding it equitable and consistent with public policy, despite the beneficiaries' objections to the quantum.

The appellants, parents of a brain-injured son, appealed a trial judge's decision on the passing of accounts for a trust they administered.

The trial judge found significant mismanagement, including a failure to account for over $165,000, fabrication of receipts, and improper cash administration, ordering them to repay funds, prejudgment interest, and costs.

The appellants challenged the disallowance of expenses, the failure to consider quantum meruit/equitable set-off, the denial of legal fee indemnity, and prejudgment interest calculation.

The respondent cross-appealed, arguing the accounts should not have been passed given the breaches and that no trustee compensation should have been awarded.

The Court of Appeal largely affirmed the trial judge's findings, making only minor adjustments for calculation errors, and dismissed the cross-appeal, emphasizing the high onus on trustees to account and the deference owed to trial judges' factual findings in such complex cases.

The appellant, Miriam Young, appealed the application judge's interpretation of the residue clause in the last will and testament of Saul Jonas, specifically the meaning of 'in equal shares per stirpes' for the 60% portion of the estate designated for grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

The appellant argued for an interpretation that would benefit the children more, while the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) advocated for an equal division among the grandchildren.

The Court of Appeal applied the 'armchair rule' and upheld the application judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in her assessment of the testator's intention to ensure equal distribution within the beneficiary classes.

The appeal regarding the will's interpretation was dismissed.

The appellant also sought leave to appeal a costs order, which was granted, but that appeal was also dismissed, with a portion of the costs payable personally by the appellant.

This is an appeal from a Superior Court of Justice order concerning an estate trustee's conflict of interest and a claim for compensation.

The appellant argued that the application judge made palpable or overriding errors in her findings of fact and application of law.

The Court of Appeal found no such errors, affirming the lower court's determination that a conflict of interest prevented the appellant from continuing as estate trustee and upholding the decision on the appellant's compensation claim.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.