Kavina P. Nagrani

The applicants challenged the validity of the deceased's 2019 and 2020 wills on grounds of undue influence and testamentary incapacity.

The respondents brought a motion arguing the applicants had not met the minimum evidentiary threshold (MET) required to challenge a will.

The court found that the applicants failed to establish the MET.

Medical evidence demonstrated the testator had no cognitive decline and was fully capable.

Evidence of undue influence was based on speculation and supposition rather than concrete facts.

The respondent's motion was granted and the applicants' motion for further production was dismissed.

The applicant, the wife of Carl Joseph Bennett, sought a declaration that Powers of Attorney signed by Carl in September 2023 were invalid due to lack of capacity and undue influence, or alternatively, that the respondent son had breached his fiduciary duties as attorney.

The court found that Carl lacked capacity to execute the POAs and that the respondent had breached multiple fiduciary duties under the Substitute Decisions Act.

The court terminated the POAs and appointed the applicant as Carl's Guardian of Property and Person.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs and provide full accounting of Carl's finances.

This motion sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal in an estate matter.

The moving parties, two brothers, were one day late in filing their appeal materials.

The court considered the factors for granting an extension of time, including the intention to appeal, length and explanation for delay, prejudice to the respondent, and merits of the appeal.

The court found the explanation for delay unsatisfactory, no actual prejudice identified, and the proposed appeal grounds exceedingly weak, particularly regarding the discretionary decision to deny an adjournment.

Given the moving parties' history of uncooperative and delaying conduct in the underlying estate application, the court determined it was not in the interests of justice to grant the extension.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the moving parties on a substantial indemnity basis, to be offset against their share of the estate.

Dexter Ramsundarsingh brought a motion for the rehearing of an appeal decided by the Court of Appeal for Ontario, seeking to re-open the appeal and re-hear submissions on whether a suicide note should be construed as a codicil to a previous will rather than a valid holographic will.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that it did not meet the "high hurdle" required for re-opening an appeal before a formal order is issued, as the issue had already been identified and argued in the original appeal.

The court clarified its jurisdiction to reconsider but found no rare circumstance warranting a re-hearing.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard an appeal concerning the testamentary capacity of a deceased who wrote a holograph will (suicide note) shortly before his death, while under the influence of alcohol and drugs.

The lower court had found a lack of testamentary capacity and issued a blended costs order.

The appellate court revisited the determination of testamentary capacity in suspicious circumstances and the principles governing costs in estate litigation.

The Court found that the application judge erred in principle by failing to apply the correct legal test for testamentary capacity and concluded that the deceased did possess testamentary capacity.

The Court also found that the costs order below was wrongly decided, as the public policy considerations in estate litigation dictated that costs should generally be paid from the estate when the litigation arises from the testator's conduct or suspicious circumstances surrounding the will.

The appeal was allowed, the suicide note was declared a valid will, and the costs order was set aside, with new costs orders made payable from the estate.