Kiran Arora

The respondent, Wayne Gardner, was the estate trustee of the Estate of Tracy Gardner.

The estate was valued at approximately $583,407.53 and the three minor grandchildren were entitled to equal shares.

Following a finding of contempt of court for failing to comply with an Order to Pass Accounts dated January 7, 2022, the respondent appeared for sentencing.

The respondent admitted to misappropriating estate funds, using proceeds from the sale of two condominiums to purchase a house in Barrie that was subsequently transferred to his then-wife during separation.

The respondent claimed the remaining funds were spent on the house, repairs, furniture, tools, and trips.

At sentencing, the court imposed a six-day term of imprisonment to be served in two-day blocks on alternate weekends, ordered the respondent to pay $583,407.53 into court in instalments of $3,000 every six months, and ordered costs of $14,000.

The applicants, estate and disability trustees, sought the court's assistance in interpreting a will.

The will created a disability trust for the testator's daughter, with the remainder to be divided among three beneficiaries upon her death.

One beneficiary survived the testator but predeceased the daughter, and the will was silent on this scenario.

Applying the armchair rule, the court interpreted the will to mean the deceased beneficiary's share passed to his issue.

The court also permitted the application to proceed without a representative for the deceased beneficiary's insolvent estate and allowed the minor issue's share to be paid into court.

A self-represented litigant subject to a vexatious litigant order sought a stay of that order pending appeal.

She brought a motion in the Court of Appeal for Ontario seeking both leave to bring the motion and the stay itself, rather than following the prescribed written procedure under rule 38.13 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion was dismissed by a Superior Court judge as an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, holding that leave to bring a motion for a stay of a vexatious litigant order must be obtained from the Superior Court in writing pursuant to rule 38.13, and that no appeal lies from a refusal to grant such leave.

The court rejected the argument that the right to appeal a vexatious litigant order without leave necessarily extends to seeking a stay of that order.

The appellant mother appealed the decisions of the Ontario Court of Justice denying her requests to adjourn a child protection trial and granting sole custody of her child to the maternal grandmother.

The appellant, who was incarcerated at the time of trial, argued the denial of an adjournment breached her section 7 Charter rights and that the trial judge erred in granting custody to the grandmother with access at the grandmother's discretion.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error.

The court held that the trial judge correctly prioritized the child's best interests and need for finality over the mother's adjournment request, and that the custody and access orders were well-supported by the evidence.