3 total
The court passed over an uncooperative co-executor to allow the sole remaining executor to administer the estate.
The applicant, Carmelina Sassano, sought the removal or passing over of her sister, Giuseppina Iozzo, as co-executor and co-trustee of their deceased mother's estate.
The primary asset of the estate was a property where the applicant resided, with the will stipulating its sale upon the applicant's voluntary departure.
The applicant wished to vacate due to health issues and the property's disrepair, but the respondent had been unresponsive and uncooperative for years, impeding the estate's administration.
The court found that the respondent had abdicated her duties, endangering the estate's principal asset.
Applying the legal principles for passing over an estate trustee, particularly the welfare of the beneficiaries, the court ordered that the respondent be passed over, the applicant be constituted as the sole executor and trustee, and granted leave for the applicant to apply for a Certificate of Appointment.
The court also awarded full indemnity costs to the applicant, to be paid from the respondent's distributive share of the estate.
Settlement approved dismissing constructive trust action against party under disability without costs.
The parties sought approval of a settlement involving a defendant under disability.
The plaintiff had commenced an action seeking a declaration of constructive trust over a property and resisting eviction.
Following a related proceeding, the plaintiff agreed to provide vacant possession and abandon his claims, with this action to be dismissed without costs.
The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the party under disability, as it avoided litigation risks and unrecoverable costs.
Appeal quashed for lack of jurisdiction as the order appealed from was interlocutory.
The appellants sought to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.
The Court of Appeal determined that the order below was interlocutory, as the motion judge had deferred the legal issue to trial.
The Court held that its appellate jurisdiction is statutory and does not extend to interlocutory orders, rejecting the argument that it had discretion to hear the appeal due to the issue's importance.
The appeal was quashed.