Joanna Lindenberg

The appellants sought to enforce a Property Partnership Agreement granting them an option to purchase a residential property from the respondent, their mother.

The application judge declared the Agreement unenforceable on the basis that it contained an incomplete essential term regarding distribution of excess sale proceeds, and further found undue influence, breach of fiduciary duty, and unconscionability.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the incomplete term was non-essential and severable, that no presumption of undue influence arose given the respondent's capacity and the specific nature of the relationship, that independent legal advice was received before the Agreement was signed, and that the unconscionability analysis failed to meet the threshold established in Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller.

The cross-appeal was dismissed as moot.

This litigation concerns the Estate of Basile Sipidias.

The primary issue on this motion was whether the parties had reached a binding settlement agreement at a judicial mediation on January 17, 2023.

Evangeline Sipidias (a respondent and estate trustee) brought the motion to enforce the settlement, supported by Theodore Sipidias (the applicant).

Constantin Sipidias (another respondent and estate trustee) opposed, arguing no settlement was reached or that it was vitiated by misrepresentation regarding a joint bank account.

The court found that a settlement of essential terms was reached, as evidenced by the presiding judge's endorsements.

The alleged innocent misrepresentation regarding the joint bank account was deemed not material enough to rescind the settlement, given the small amount at stake relative to the total estate value and the long history of litigation.

The court also approved the settlement on behalf of George Sipidias, a beneficiary under legal disability, finding it to be in his best interest.

In the context of complex estate litigation, the applicant sought to withdraw two affidavits previously filed in support of a motion for the appointment of an Estate Trustee During Litigation and for documentary production.

The applicant argued the affidavits were no longer necessary due to a subsequent consent order that streamlined the proceedings and provided for documentary discovery.

The respondent opposed the withdrawal, arguing it was a tactic to shield the affiants from cross-examination.

The court held that leave is required to withdraw an affidavit filed in support of a motion.

Applying the Gill factors, the court granted leave, finding that the affidavits had not yet been used by the court, the respondents would not be prejudiced, and the withdrawal was a legitimate response to the evolving litigation landscape rather than an improper tactic to avoid cross-examination.

The Estate Trustee applied to rectify a drafting error in the deceased's Secondary Will.

The will mistakenly directed the redemption of 150 Class D shares to fund a $2 million bequest, but the deceased owned Class E shares, and 300 shares were required to generate the necessary after-tax proceeds.

The drafting solicitor admitted the error.

The deceased's widow opposed the rectification, arguing it should await the trial of her separate negligence claim against the solicitor.

The court applied the Robinson test, found the solicitor misunderstood or failed to carry out the testator's instructions, and granted the rectification to reflect the deceased's true intentions.