Katie Morris

The appellant sought to prove the validity of a holograph codicil executed by the deceased testatrix, purportedly leaving the most valuable estate asset, a home farm worth approximately $20 million, to the appellant alone.

The trial judge found suspicious circumstances relating to both the testatrix's knowledge and approval of the codicil's contents and her testamentary capacity, and concluded the appellant failed to discharge her burden on either issue.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of suspicious circumstances, no misapplication of the legal standard for knowledge and approval, and no improper reliance on the family doctor's clinical notes.

The court also found the reasons for decision were sufficient for meaningful appellate review.

Costs of $100,000 were awarded to the respondents.

Following an eleven-day trial regarding the validity of a holograph codicil and the ownership of investment accounts, the court determined the issue of costs.

The applicant sought to have her costs paid from the estate, arguing she acted reasonably in seeking to administer the estate.

The court rejected this argument, finding she procured the invalid codicil in suspicious circumstances and for her sole benefit.

Applying the 'loser pays' principle, the court ordered the applicant to personally pay the respondents' costs, fixed at $2,217,768.69, taking into account the complexity of the proceeding and the respondents' offers to settle.

In a will challenge and dependants' support proceeding, the moving parties sought production of financial records from Grand River Enterprises Six Nations Ltd. (GRE), a third-party corporation in which the deceased held a 12.5% interest, and leave to examine two non-parties regarding the deceased's will.

The court granted both motions, finding that the financial records were relevant to valuing the estate and assessing the testamentary sense of the will, and that the non-parties possessed relevant information not obtainable elsewhere.

Following a trial on a motion to change child and spousal support, both parties sought costs.

The court determined that the responding party (the original applicant) was the successful party, having successfully defended against the moving party's claims to drastically reduce his income for support purposes and terminate spousal support.

Comparing the final result to the various offers to settle, the court found the responding party's offers were reasonable while the moving party's offers were entirely unreasonable.

The court awarded the responding party partial indemnity costs fixed at $213,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST, noting the complexity of the case and the moving party's conduct.

The moving party father brought a motion to change to reduce child and spousal support, claiming a decrease in his farming income.

The responding party mother brought a cross-motion to increase support, citing his increased net worth.

The original 2010 consent order was based on an imputed income of $250,000.

The court found the father's cutting horse operation was a hobby, not a business, and attributed those corporate losses to his income, resulting in an available income of over $428,000.

However, because neither party could prove how the original $250,000 imputed income was calculated, both motions to change based on income fluctuations were dismissed.

Child support was varied to reflect children ceasing to be dependents.

Spousal support was correspondingly increased to offset the loss of child support and converted into a $250,000 lump sum to effect a clean break.