Kathleen McDormand

The applicant, the common-law spouse of the deceased, brought a dependent's support claim against the deceased's intestate estate.

Prior to the deceased's death, the applicant transferred approximately $570,000 to herself while acting as his Power of Attorney.

The court found that despite these transfers, the estate had not adequately provided for the applicant's future needs and the deceased's moral obligations.

The court awarded the applicant the farm house property, the funds already received, and an additional cash payment, totaling approximately half of the estate's value.

The respondent Estate brought a motion to bifurcate the proceeding, seeking a first trial on the validity of a Marriage Contract, separate from other issues including the applicant's claim to set aside the contract, elect equalization, and seek dependant relief.

The applicant opposed, arguing duplication of evidence and prejudice.

The court granted the bifurcation, finding it would lead to a more just, expeditious, and less expensive determination by potentially narrowing issues and promoting settlement, aligning with the culture shift emphasized in Hyrniak v. Mauldin.

The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company, as Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL) of the Estate of Mary Kathleen Kuklis, applied for directions regarding the sale of real property, disposition of personal property, and production of documents from Martin Kuklis, a former attorney for property.

Following a settlement of the application, the issue of costs remained.

The court found Martin Kuklis's conduct, including his failure to pass accounts and self-interested opposition, warranted an award of substantial indemnity costs against him personally, payable first from his share of the Estate.

Karla Anne Shawn Kuklis, Shawna Ellis, and Wesley Kuklis were not held personally responsible for costs, and their request for costs was dismissed.

The ETDL was awarded full indemnity costs, with the difference between full and substantial indemnity paid from the Estate.

The applicant, widow of the deceased, sought interpretation of an ambiguous will and also advanced alternative claims for equalization, dependent's relief, and constructive trust.

The respondents, children of the deceased, brought a motion for document production and opposed the applicant's motion to separate the will interpretation from the alternative claims.

The court found the applicant's joinder of civil and family law claims procedurally incorrect.

The court ordered the severance of the family law claims (equalization, unjust enrichment, support) and their transfer to Family Court, with a stay.

The will interpretation, rectification, or invalidity issues will continue as an application under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The respondents' production motion was dismissed as premature.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on two offers to settle.

The defendants argued costs should be payable in the cause or fixed on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found the plaintiff was not entitled to substantial indemnity costs because the first offer had expired and the judgment did not meet or exceed the second offer's terms.

Applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable, the court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $65,000, inclusive of disbursements, payable forthwith.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the corporate defendant for amounts owing under commercial equipment leases and against the remaining defendants under unconditional guarantees.

The defendants argued there was no valid assignment of the leases, raised credibility issues, and claimed the plaintiff fundamentally breached the leases by providing defective equipment, thereby invalidating the exclusion clauses.

Applying the Tercon framework, the court enforced the exclusion clauses and found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Summary judgment was granted for over $2.2 million against the corporate defendant and $500,000 against the guarantors, but execution was stayed pending the resolution of the defendants' counterclaim.

Costs decision following a motion for directions in a guardianship application under the Substitute Decisions Act.

The applicant sought inclusion of production terms requiring disclosure of medical records and a lawyer’s file relating to powers of attorney executed by the applicant’s mother.

The court had previously refused to include those production terms in the order for directions.

On the issue of costs, the court held that the motion proceeded unnecessarily due to the applicant’s insistence on the disputed production terms and that the respondents had been prepared to consent to the remaining terms.

Partial indemnity costs were therefore awarded to two respondents, with reductions applied to the amounts claimed as excessive.

The applicant sought an Order for Directions in an application challenging powers of attorney executed by his mother and seeking to replace the appointed attorneys for property and personal care.

The parties agreed to most procedural directions, including a capacity assessment, but disputed proposed terms requiring automatic production of extensive medical records and a lawyer’s file if incapacity were later found.

The court held the proposed production terms were premature, overly broad, and procedurally improper because non‑parties affected by the order had not been served.

The court emphasized the distinctions in the Substitute Decisions Act between capacity to grant powers of attorney and incapacity to manage property or personal care.

The contested production terms were refused and directions were issued for capacity assessments and procedural steps in the application.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion for judgment after noting the defendant in default for failing to file a statement of defence in time.

The statement of claim sought $15,000 in general damages, loss of income, or loss of competitive advantage.

The court held that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the damages claimed.

The motion for judgment was denied, but the plaintiff was granted leave to obtain a date for an assessment of damages.

Following summary judgment in favour of a mortgagee on a first mortgage, the court determined costs arising from the motion and the broader action.

The mortgagee sought substantial costs against the mortgagors and guarantor, while the defendants sought costs against a second mortgagee whose summary judgment motion dismissing their third party claims failed.

The court held that the mortgagee was entitled to costs but found the amounts claimed excessive and reduced them, allocating portions jointly and severally among the defendants.

The court also found the second mortgagee acted unreasonably in bringing a summary judgment motion involving credibility issues and ordered substantial indemnity costs in favour of the guarantor.

Requests to stay enforcement of the summary judgment and costs orders pending related insurance litigation were denied.