Justin William de Vries

This decision concerns an application by Dr. Kelly Diane Riedel regarding the validity and administration of the Dmyant Sangha Family Trust and the Sangha Property Trust.

Dr. Riedel alleges that the trusts are shams, created to defeat her family law entitlements, and seeks various forms of relief including the production of legal records and the conversion of the application to an action.

The court addresses the legal standards for sham trusts, the relevance of disputed facts, and the entitlement to privileged documents.

The application to convert to an action is dismissed, and the court sets out a process for determining threshold questions regarding the validity of the trusts.

This case involved multiple applications concerning the estates of Leonardo and Rose La Calamita, heard together.

The primary dispute was between the deceaseds' children, John Michael La Calamita (Estate Trustee of Leonardo's Estate) and Diane Marie LaCalamita.

John sought an interpretation of Leonardo's Will to allow him to appropriate the Yonge Street Property (the main estate asset) by paying Diane a cash sum for her one-third share.

Diane opposed this, arguing it was an abuse of process, and sought John's removal as estate trustee or the appointment of a disinterested trustee for the property's sale.

Diane also objected to John's application for a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee.

The court ruled that Leonardo's Will does not permit John's proposed appropriation method, specifically requiring a disinterested trustee for any private sale of estate property to a trustee-beneficiary.

However, the court dismissed Diane's claims for John's removal as trustee and her abuse of process argument.

The court also dismissed the immediate appointment of a disinterested trustee, noting it would only be necessary if a private sale were pursued.

Ultimately, the court ordered the issuance of the Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee to John.

This case involved multiple applications concerning the estates of Leonardo and Rose La Calamita, heard together.

The primary dispute was between the deceaseds' children, John Michael La Calamita (Estate Trustee of Leonardo's Estate) and Diane Marie LaCalamita.

John sought an interpretation of Leonardo's Will to allow him to appropriate the Yonge Street Property (the main estate asset) by paying Diane a cash sum for her one-third share.

Diane opposed this, arguing it was an abuse of process, and sought John's removal as estate trustee or the appointment of a disinterested trustee for the property's sale.

Diane also objected to John's application for a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee.

The court ruled that Leonardo's Will does not permit John's proposed appropriation method, specifically requiring a disinterested trustee for any private sale of estate property to a trustee-beneficiary.

However, the court dismissed Diane's claims for John's removal as trustee and her abuse of process argument.

The court also dismissed the immediate appointment of a disinterested trustee, noting it would only be necessary if a private sale were pursued.

Ultimately, the court ordered the issuance of the Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee to John.

This appeal concerned the sale of Lash Point, a family cottage property owned by a non-profit corporation (LPAC).

Family members were divided between "Remainers" (who wanted to keep the property) and "Departers" (who wanted to sell their interests).

A lower court initially ordered a staged buy-out, but due to delays, a motion judge later approved an en bloc sale of the entire property to third parties, reversing the original plan.

The appellants (Remainers and LPAC) appealed, arguing the motion judge lacked jurisdiction to vary the original order and erred in approving the sale without satisfying the principles for sale approval in receivership contexts (Soundair principles).

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's jurisdiction to vary the order but found that the sale approval was flawed as it did not meet the Soundair principles, particularly regarding efforts to obtain the best price and the integrity of the sales process.

The appeal was allowed, the sale order set aside, and the Receiver was directed to develop a proper sales process for the entire property.

The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company, as guardian of property for Asha Kumra, sought advice and direction from the court regarding whether Minutes of Settlement, entered into by Asha's sons Sanjiv and Rajiv Kumra, were binding on the guardian and precluded it from pursuing claims related to property transfers made by Asha prior to a one-year limitation period specified in the Minutes.

The court found that the Minutes were not binding on Scotiatrust or Asha Kumra, as neither was a party to the agreement, nor was Asha legally represented during its negotiation.

Consequently, Scotiatrust retains the discretion to pursue claims in Asha Kumra's best interests, irrespective of the limitation period in the Minutes.