Kelly Anne Charlebois

The applicant, a beneficiary of an estate, sought the removal of the estate trustees, who were also beneficiaries, citing "family dynamics" and a perceived risk of unfair treatment in her attempt to purchase a cottage from the estate.

The court dismissed the application, finding no clear necessity for removal and emphasizing that the applicant's emotional interest in the cottage did not elevate her legal interest beyond that of other beneficiaries.

The court held that the estate trustees' plan to sell the cottage was consistent with their duty to maximize estate value and that the applicant's concerns about unfairness were speculative.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an order staying her Ontario application regarding an estate dispute pending the determination of a related proceeding in California.

The deceased lived in California and executed her will there, but held significant assets in Ontario.

The applicant sought rectification of the will to include a residue clause in her favour, and also claimed the Ontario assets were held in trust for her.

The motion judge stayed the Ontario proceedings, finding that the rectification issue should be determined in California first.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decision and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order.

In estate litigation concerning the administration of a large estate, beneficiaries sought directions relating to tax consequences arising from a pipeline strategy used to transfer corporate assets.

The moving parties claimed compensation for a lost tax benefit and reimbursement for foreign exchange tax paid by a corporation intended to be conveyed to them, and also sought an indemnity for potential liabilities arising from entities added to facilitate the transaction.

The court held that the estate should compensate the beneficiaries for the lost accumulated earnings and profits used to reduce estate tax liability and reimburse the corporation for tax that should have been incurred at the date of death.

However, the request for an indemnity relating to potential liabilities of additional corporations was dismissed.

The court emphasized equitable principles and the testator’s intention that gifts to grandchildren be transferred free of tax liabilities.

The appellant challenged a status hearing order dismissing his civil action for delay arising from real estate transactions and sought leave to appeal costs.

The Court of Appeal held that the status hearing judge correctly applied the rule 48.14(13) framework, under which the plaintiff bears the burden to provide an acceptable explanation for delay and show that the defendants would suffer no non-compensable prejudice if the action proceeded.

The court rejected the submission that the rule 24.01 dismissal test should govern status hearings, emphasizing that the two mechanisms are distinct.

It also upheld the finding that the moving party bore primary responsibility for the prolonged inactivity and that the deaths of two material witnesses created severe prejudice.

The appeal was dismissed and costs of $10,500 were awarded to the respondents.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing their action for delay.

The action, which involved a long-standing neighbour dispute, was dismissed after the plaintiffs failed to set it down for trial within the prescribed time limits.

The court applied the Reid factors and found that the plaintiffs had adequately explained most of the delay, the failure to set the action down was due to inadvertence, the motion was brought promptly, and the defendant suffered no significant prejudice.

The court set aside the dismissal order and granted a short extension to set the action down for trial.

Following dismissal of a civil action for delay at a status hearing, several defendants sought partial indemnity costs.

The court assessed the reasonableness of the amounts claimed under Rules 57.01 and 57.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the factors governing proportionality and reasonable expectations.

The court found that the plaintiff’s reliance on extraneous affidavit evidence unnecessarily complicated the hearing and increased costs, and that the proceeding itself arose from the plaintiff’s dilatory conduct.

While the hourly rates generally complied with the applicable practice direction, the total amount sought by one defendant was considered excessive for a half‑day motion-like hearing.

The court reduced certain claimed amounts and fixed costs payable to the successful defendants.

At a Rule 48.14 status hearing, the plaintiff was required to show cause why a civil action alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and professional negligence arising from real estate transactions should not be dismissed for delay.

The court reviewed the procedural history and found that the plaintiff had taken minimal steps to advance the action over several years, failed to provide any reasonable explanation for the delay, and had not diligently pursued service, pleadings, or discovery.

The court further held that the deaths of two key defendants created significant non-compensable prejudice because their evidence regarding the disputed transactions could no longer be obtained.

Applying the principles in Savundranayagam v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada and related authorities, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed to satisfy both branches of the test required to avoid dismissal.

The action was therefore dismissed for delay.

The parties consented to an order for costs of the appeal.

The Court of Appeal ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs fixed at $12,000 plus $805.23 for HST and disbursements.

The appellant deposited a materially altered cheque into his account at the respondent credit union as part of a wire transfer scam.

After the drawee bank dishonoured the cheque, the respondent exercised its common law right of charge-back against the appellant's accounts and sued for the unrecovered balance.

The trial judge found for the respondent.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the right of charge-back was extinguished once the respondent received funds from the drawee bank, and alternatively, that the respondent was negligent in failing to warn him that the credit was provisional.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a collecting bank does not lose its right of charge-back upon receiving payment from the drawee bank, and that the respondent owed no duty to warn the appellant in these circumstances.

The respondent union council brought a motion to quash the applicant employers' application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The Board had previously ruled that a 1999 settlement agreement was unenforceable against the union council, allowing a related employer application to proceed.

The employers sought judicial review to prohibit the Board from proceeding, arguing the application was an abuse of process and breached the settlement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to quash, finding that the threshold issue of whether the union council was bound by the settlement should be reviewed prior to the Board hearing the merits.

The court also dismissed the union council's alternative motion to strike an affidavit, admitting the evidence for the judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of the school board's decision to exclude a student from a regular class and require an assessment prior to determining placement.

The board offered a special education placement pending the assessment, which the litigation guardian refused.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the board's position was not unreasonable, and declined to order the deletion of the student's records.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the issue of unlawful possession of a booth had already been raised, considered, and determined in the respondent's favour during proceedings in New Jersey.

The issue of possession was fundamental and integral to the determination of the appellant's set-off and recoupment claim.

The appellants appealed a judgment in favour of the respondent on a claim and the dismissal of their counterclaim.

They argued the matter should have proceeded under the ordinary rules rather than the simplified rules.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the ordinary rules applied, the outcome would have been the same as the appellants raised no defence to the claim and the counterclaim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

Following the release of the appeal judgment, the appellants requested clarification on the effect of the judgment on two aspects of the trial judge's order for interest.

The Court of Appeal clarified that interest on the respondents' share of Vicbir's RDTOH remains at 6% per annum from January 1, 2001.

The Court also clarified that interest on the share of sums payable to one of the respondents should be calculated on the net amount owing after deducting the sum she owed for reacquired shares.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that found oppressive conduct in the management of a family holding company and ordered the corporation to purchase the respondents' shares for cancellation.

The trial judge devised a valuation formula that included an unequal distribution of the corporation's capital dividend account to compensate the respondents for their share of the refundable dividend tax on hand.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the main appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's findings of oppression or his general valuation approach.

However, the Court allowed the respondents' cross-appeal in part, correcting a mathematical error in the trial judge's tax account formula to ensure the respondents were fully compensated for their pro rata share of the refundable dividend tax on hand.

The appellant insurance company appealed the dismissal of its professional negligence claim against its former legal counsel.

The appellant alleged it suffered damages after relying on the respondents' advice not to defend a New York action, which resulted in a default judgment that was later enforced in Ontario.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that, although one component of the legal advice regarding jury sympathy was incorrect, it did not materially contribute to the appellant's decision not to defend the action.

The appeal was dismissed.