Keith Juriansz

This endorsement consolidates three applications concerning the guardianship and estate administration of Teresa Opalinski and Alexander Opalinski Sr. The disputes involved allegations of elder abuse, undue influence, and breaches of fiduciary duty among family members.

The court addressed motions for dismissal of a guardianship application (rendered moot by death), a motion for access to Alexander Sr., and an application for the removal of Joanna Opalinski as estate trustee of Teresa's estate.

The court dismissed the guardianship application and the access motion, and granted the application to remove Joanna as estate trustee, directing the appointment of an independent trustee.

This endorsement consolidates three applications concerning the guardianship and estate administration of Teresa Opalinski and Alexander Opalinski Sr. The disputes involved allegations of elder abuse, undue influence, and breaches of fiduciary duty among family members.

The court addressed motions for dismissal of a guardianship application (rendered moot by death), a motion for access to Alexander Sr., and an application for the removal of Joanna Opalinski as estate trustee of Teresa's estate.

The court dismissed the guardianship application and the access motion, and granted the application to remove Joanna as estate trustee, directing the appointment of an independent trustee.

The parties sought approval of a settlement involving a defendant under disability.

The plaintiff had commenced an action seeking a declaration of constructive trust over a property and resisting eviction.

Following a related proceeding, the plaintiff agreed to provide vacant possession and abandon his claims, with this action to be dismissed without costs.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the party under disability, as it avoided litigation risks and unrecoverable costs.

The applicant brought a motion to compel arbitration of a dispute arising from a real estate development project governed by a Co-Ownership Agreement.

The parties agreed the dispute should be arbitrated but disagreed on whether the corporate mortgagees and individual guarantors were bound by the arbitration clause.

The court applied the competence-competence principle, holding that the arbitrator must determine their own jurisdiction and decide which parties are subject to the arbitration, as the issue involved mixed fact and law requiring contractual interpretation.

The applicant estate trustee brought a motion for an order appointing section 3 counsel under the Substitute Decisions Act for her father.

The respondents opposed the motion, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the underlying proceeding was not brought under the Substitute Decisions Act.

The court agreed with the respondents and dismissed the motion, holding that the plain wording of section 3(1) and relevant case law require the underlying proceeding to be under the Substitute Decisions Act for the court to have jurisdiction to appoint such counsel.

The court issued a costs endorsement following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs for a motion and partial indemnity costs for the action.

The plaintiff argued the costs were unreasonable and disproportional.

The court fixed costs for the motion at $2,500 (substantial indemnity) and for the action at $24,104.36 (partial indemnity).

Substantial indemnity was awarded for the motion due to the plaintiff's sanctionable conduct, including failure to comply with previous costs orders and engaging in pointless delay.

The court emphasized that proportionality should not override other considerations, especially when a litigant's conduct prolongs or complicates proceedings, and that costs can exceed the amount recovered in judgment in appropriate circumstances.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the statement of claim and release funds paid into court, citing the plaintiff's repeated failure to comply with multiple costs orders.

The plaintiff had accumulated significant outstanding costs and had engaged in delaying tactics, including unverified claims of imminent funds and questionable travel expenses.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action due to her contumelious breaches of costs orders and ordered the funds in court to be paid to the defendant, emphasizing the necessity of enforcing court orders despite the draconian nature of dismissal.