Joshua Vickery

The appellant, Rowan Gray, appealed a Superior Court decision that removed him as Executor and Estate Trustee of his mother's estate due to his failure to administer estate assets.

The motion judge had also declined to appoint one of the respondents as a replacement, instead opting for a professional executor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the motion judge's application of the high threshold for removing an estate trustee, the determination that certain claims were not statute-barred under the Trustee Act, or the finding of sufficient corroboration under the Evidence Act.

The court affirmed the motion judge's decision as legally sound and practical, and awarded costs against the appellant personally.

At a case conference in a dependants' relief application, the applicants sought the summary appointment of an Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL).

The court adjourned the request to allow the responding party proper notice and an opportunity to be heard, noting that the respondent's counsel lacked instructions.

The court ordered the deposit of the will on consent and urged the parties to cooperate to avoid unnecessary costs in a small estate.

The plaintiff, operating under a pseudolegal name, brought an action against his siblings regarding their deceased father's estate, seeking damages, property, and other unusual relief.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment.

The court found that the plaintiff lacked legal standing as it was not a recognized legal entity.

Furthermore, the court held there was no genuine issue for trial, as the plaintiff failed to provide any evidence to support his allegations of procedural impropriety, inheritance entitlement, or property mismanagement.

The action was dismissed with prejudice, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded against the plaintiff personally.

This is an appeal from the dismissal of a motion to set aside a noting in default.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by failing to consider the balance of prejudice and the full context of the dispute, including the appellants' arguable defence and counterclaim.

The court emphasized the strong preference for deciding civil actions on their merits.

The appeal was allowed, the noting in default was set aside, and the appellants were directed to file their statement of defence and counterclaim.

The Municipality of Mississippi Mills applied to declare Bryant Cougle and Brylin Construction Ltd. vexatious litigants under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court reviewed a history of persistent, unsuccessful, and abusive litigation and communications by the respondents concerning a property zoning dispute dating back to the 1970s.

The court found that the respondents had instituted vexatious proceedings and conducted themselves in a vexatious manner, repeatedly raising issues already decided and making unsubstantiated allegations.

The court declared both respondents vexatious litigants and prohibited them from instituting or continuing any further proceedings without leave of a Superior Court judge.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the Municipality due to the respondents' sanctionable behavior.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a noting in default so they could file a statement of defence and counterclaim.

The plaintiffs had noted the defendants in default after they failed to file a defence for nearly a year.

A previous court order had granted the defendants an extension to file, which they missed, citing the COVID-19 pandemic and difficulties retaining counsel.

The court applied the factors for setting aside a noting in default and found the defendants' delay significant and their explanations uncompelling.

The motion was dismissed.