Jordan D. Oelbaum

The Applicant, Estate Trustee Robert Martin, sought to vacate a motion brought by the Respondent, Marian Martin, and to address chronic delays in the estate litigation.

The Respondent had repeatedly failed to file motion materials and comply with court timetables, leading to significant unnecessary costs for the Estate.

The court found the Respondent's actions/inactions had caused avoidable delays.

The court vacated the Respondent's motion, ordered her to pay $15,000 in costs thrown away, reduced the trial time, and set strict deadlines for the Respondent's responding record, with a provision for the Applicant's application to proceed unopposed if she failed to comply.

The applicants, estate trustees, sought directions and rectification regarding the deceased's Primary and Limited Wills.

The court struck portions of an affidavit for failing to identify the source of information and belief, but granted relief from strict compliance for another affidavit.

The court found it unnecessary to rectify the Primary Will, as the two wills could be read harmoniously to exclude the Limited Will's assets from the Primary Will.

The court rectified a typographical error in the Limited Will and directed the applicants to pursue their request for a limited certificate of appointment in the original probate proceeding.

The appellant appealed an order made by Justice Conway of the Superior Court of Justice regarding production of materials and privilege issues.

The appellant did not attend the motion before Conway J., although properly served.

The respondents did not object to the order.

The Court of Appeal found that the issues were best litigated before Conway J. in the context of the ongoing proceeding, as she was in a better position to tailor an order to the specific circumstances and issues relating to production orders and protection of privileges.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent estate trustee and the non-party respondent.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their actions challenging the validity of their mother's wills and inter vivos transfers of land to the respondent.

The appellants alleged undue influence and fraud.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge failed to properly use the expanded fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion judge made conclusory determinations on highly contested facts without conducting a necessary credibility analysis, particularly regarding allegedly fraudulent invoices used to justify the property transfers.

The summary judgment was set aside and the matter directed to trial.

Following the dismissal of a will challenge via summary judgment, the successful respondents sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The court found that the applicants' allegations of undue influence were not evidence-based and their vitriolic approach unnecessarily prolonged the litigation.

The court awarded costs of $275,000 to the estate and $125,000 to the respondent personally, payable by the applicants, with one applicant's liability capped at 20%.

The moving parties (respondents in the main action) brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the responding parties' claims challenging the validity of the deceased's 2005 will and inter vivos transfers.

The responding parties alleged that the deceased was subjected to undue influence and fraud by her son, the primary beneficiary.

The court reviewed the extensive circumstantial evidence and found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting that the deceased was an independent and strong-willed individual who made deliberate choices about her estate.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the claims to set aside the 2005 will and the inter vivos transfers.

This decision addresses costs arising from multiple motions and proceedings in protracted estate litigation involving disputes between estate trustees and beneficiaries.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court emphasized proportionality and fairness in determining cost awards.

The court found that much of the litigation resulted from the estate trustees’ inability to cooperate and noted that one trustee frequently advanced unreasonable and self‑interested positions that prolonged proceedings.

Costs were awarded to various beneficiaries and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, largely payable out of the estate, with certain costs ordered personally against one trustee where his conduct unnecessarily caused litigation.

The court fixed specific monetary awards for each participant and rejected certain cost claims where the conduct did not justify indemnification.

In the ongoing administration of the estate of John Kaptyn, the estate trustees (Henry and Simon Kaptyn) and beneficiaries brought multiple motions due to their inability to agree on routine matters.

Henry sought the return of retained earnings from a corporation, which the court dismissed as res judicata and an abuse of process due to a prior consent judgment.

The court also addressed the timing of a $1 million compensation payment and directed the parties to confer and agree on the form of indemnification and share pledge agreements required for the distribution of estate assets to the grandchildren, warning of costs consequences for unreasonable delay.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his proceeding.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision, noting that the appellant had failed to deliver a statement of claim as required by a previous order and provided no explanation for this failure.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.