Kimberly Alexis Gale

On an estate appeal, the appellants challenged findings that upheld a later will, dismissed their application, and refused costs relief.

The court found legal and palpable-and-overriding errors in the trial-level analysis of suspicious circumstances, knowledge and approval, conflict concerns surrounding the drafting solicitor, and undue influence evidence.

The court held the impugned will invalid, granted related relief dismissing the connected Small Claims Court action, and set aside the costs order.

Applying modern estate-costs principles, the court ordered a blended costs result, including substantial indemnity costs personally against the respondent for part of first-instance costs, with the remaining amounts payable from the estate.

The court considered an application by Bob Alan Barker to remove his sister, Catherine Elizabeth Barker, as Estate Trustee of their late brother John Joseph Barker’s estate, and to disqualify her from receiving a share of the estate due to alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and misappropriation.

The decision addresses requests for production of financial records, including Catherine’s line of credit and her mother’s bank accounts, and analyzes inconsistencies in Catherine’s explanations regarding the handling of estate assets, the sale of a condominium, and life insurance proceeds.

The court granted some of the requested orders, including production of specific financial documents and an examination under oath, and awarded costs personally against Catherine.

This is a will challenge concerning the estate of Reka Anroop.

The applicants, Bryan Anroop and Amadai Hardayal, challenged the validity of Reka’s Fourth Will dated May 19, 2022, alleging lack of knowledge and approval, lack of capacity, undue influence, forgery, and unconscionable procurement.

The respondents are Reka’s adult children, with only Chandrawattie Naqvi participating in the litigation.

The court found that the Fourth Will was valid, Reka had capacity, was not unduly influenced, and the signature was not a forgery.

The applicants’ claim for reimbursement for renovations was allowed.

The court also addressed a related Small Claims Court action regarding a life insurance payout.

This appeal arose in the context of estate litigation and focused on a procedural point regarding the service of a notice of application.

The appellants, who were the original respondents, sought to set aside a prior order (the March Order) on the basis of improper service, a motion they had previously brought and lost.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it an impermissible collateral attack on the earlier October Order, which had declined to set aside the March Order.

The court noted that the appellants had fully participated in subsequent proceedings and were not prejudiced by the initial service.

The applicant, Kathleen Florence Doherty, as Estate Trustee, sought an accounting and recovery of funds from Terrence Doherty, who, as attorney for property for the late Molly Marie Doherty, had withdrawn and transferred over $329,000 to himself, his spouse Sylvia, and their son Liam.

The court found that the transferred amounts were not valid inter vivos gifts and that Terrence breached his fiduciary duties.

Sylvia was found jointly and severally liable for knowingly assisting in the breach, while Liam was ordered to make restitution for the funds he received.

Full indemnity costs were awarded against the respondents due to the reprehensible conduct.