John Vincent Kranjc

This trial concerned the validity of the 2011 last will and testament of Audrey Rona Stewart.

The plaintiff, Ronald William Stewart, was named the sole beneficiary, while the defendant, Sandra Lee Stewart, contested the will on grounds of lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence by the plaintiff, lack of knowledge and approval of contents, and revocation by an alleged 2014 will.

The court found that the Testator possessed the requisite testamentary capacity, was not unduly influenced by the plaintiff, and had full knowledge and approval of the will's contents.

Furthermore, the court found insufficient evidence to support the existence of an alleged 2014 will.

Consequently, the court declared the 2011 Will valid and dismissed the defendant's objections.

A contractor and a second mortgagee disputed entitlement to insurance proceeds paid into court following a fire that destroyed equestrian facilities.

The contractor claimed priority under s. 85 of the Construction Lien Act based on a construction lien arising from reconstruction work, while the mortgagee claimed entitlement based on a second mortgage and alleged shortfall following a power of sale.

The court found the evidentiary record insufficient to determine whether the contractor had a valid and timely lien and expressed concerns about the validity of the mortgage due to possible past consideration.

As a result, the court declined to order payment of the funds to either claimant and directed that the dispute proceed to trial for viva voce evidence and further documentary proof.

Residual beneficiaries brought a motion for directions in a contested passing of accounts relating to a large estate.

They alleged that estate trustees had taken excessive executor’s compensation and sought review and possible repayment.

A former trustee sought to add an accounting firm as a party on the basis that the firm had received a substantial portion of the executor compensation through a partnership arrangement and might be vicariously liable under the Partnerships Act if the compensation was excessive.

The court held that there was a triable issue regarding whether the partner acted within the scope of partnership business or with the firm’s authorization, and that the firm’s presence was necessary to adjudicate the issues effectively.

The firm was therefore added as a party and a procedural timetable was established for discovery and trial of the passing of accounts.