Judith L. Turner

The applicants, five beneficiaries of the estate, brought an application requiring the estate trustees to pass accounts.

The court had to determine whether a joint bank account held by the deceased and one of the trustees was an asset of the estate, and whether legal and accounting fees incurred by the trustee should be deducted from her executor's compensation.

The court found that the joint account was an asset of the estate, as the trustee failed to rebut the presumption of resulting trust.

The court also held that $37,512.57 in legal fees should be deducted from the trustee's compensation because the accounts did not differentiate between legal work and executor's work, but allowed the accounting and tax preparation fees to be paid by the estate.

The trustee was awarded net compensation of $7,522.25.

Two brothers disputed the ownership of a family farm corporation following the deaths of their parents.

The applicant, Barry Reid, sought to enforce a purported 1991 holograph will that he discovered in 1999, which allegedly left the farm shares to him.

The respondent, Robert Reid, argued the claim was statute-barred.

The court held that the exceptions under section 43(2) of the former Limitations Act for trust property retained or converted by a trustee did not apply, as the mother had taken the shares personally as the rightful beneficiary under a 1984 will.

Consequently, the six-year limitation period applied and expired in 2005, rendering the 2012 application statute-barred.

The plaintiff, Graydon Cragg, funded and established a financial services business through his corporation, 1350369 Ontario Inc. The defendants, Tom Jarvis and Darren O'Halloran, managed the business and developed its client base.

In 2005, the defendants abruptly left the business, taking the client files and staff to set up a competing operation.

The court found that Jarvis and O'Halloran were employees and fiduciaries of the plaintiff's business, not independent contractors.

By taking the book of business without compensating the plaintiff, they breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched.

The court directed a business valuation to determine damages.