Kristine Judith Anderson

The court dismissed two actions by will beneficiaries against the drafting lawyer for negligence, holding that the claims were statute-barred by the 15-year ultimate limitation period in section 15(2) of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found that the limitation period began to run from the date of the negligent drafting, not the testator’s death, and that no statutory or common law exception applied.

The court also addressed the application of the Trustee Act and concluded that the two-year limitation period for estate claims did not revive or extend the beneficiaries’ claims.

The appellant appealed an order under the Succession Law Reform Act regarding dependant support for her two minor children from their late father's estate.

The application judge had split the net estate equally between the children and the deceased's surviving spouse.

The Divisional Court found the application judge erred in his application of the legal test for quantifying support and improperly considered the appellant's receipt of social assistance.

The court varied the order to allocate 100 percent of the net estate to the minor children, given their precarious financial circumstances compared to the surviving spouse, while upholding the decision to exclude a pre-retirement surviving spouse pension from the estate's value.

The applicant brought a dependant's relief application on behalf of her two minor children against the estate of their deceased father.

The court had to determine whether a pre-retirement surviving spouse pension benefit and a life insurance policy should be included in the net assets of the estate under section 72 of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The court held that the life insurance policy was included, but the surviving spouse pension benefit was not, as it was payable by virtue of marital status rather than a beneficiary designation.

The court ordered the net estate to be split equally between the deceased's children and his surviving spouse.

The defendants brought a motion to amend their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim to add a new party and claim damages for negligent misrepresentation.

The plaintiff opposed the motion on the basis that the proposed claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found that the defendants failed to provide a sufficient evidentiary record to rebut the presumption of discoverability under section 5(2) of the Act.

The motion to amend the pleadings and add the party was dismissed.

The defendant estate trustee brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss specific allegations of breach of a settlement agreement, arguing they were statute-barred and estopped.

The plaintiffs, beneficiaries of the estate, alleged breach of fiduciary duty, self-dealing, and fraudulent concealment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the issues were deeply intertwined with the broader claims, involved significant credibility disputes, and were not appropriate for partial summary judgment as they could lead to inconsistent findings at trial.

The applicant, Qi Xue, brought a motion seeking an order for financial disclosure from his stepdaughter, Yimeng Sun (Serena), in the context of a broader family law application for divorce, support, and property equalization against his spouse, Xiuping Sun, and Serena.

Serena opposed the disclosure, arguing that there was no evidence of parental care from Xue, the disclosure sought was disproportionate, and that support should be primarily sought from the spouse.

The court found that Xue had an arguable case for having provided care or support to Serena, thereby engaging Section 32 of the Family Law Act, and demonstrated a need for support.

Additionally, both Xue's property and support claims, and Serena's own property claim against Xue, triggered the financial disclosure requirements under Rule 13(1) of the Family Law Rules.

The court granted the motion, ordering Serena to provide the requested financial disclosure.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering her to pay unpaid dance school fees to the respondent.

She argued the trial judge erred in calculating the debt and in dismissing her counterclaims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and general damages.

The Divisional Court upheld most of the trial judge's findings, finding no palpable and overriding error.

However, the court found the trial judge erred in his analysis of a hair-braiding agreement between the parties, concluding the contract was frustrated rather than unbreached.

The court allowed the appeal in part, granting the appellant a $1,200 set-off against the debt, but otherwise dismissed the appeal and awarded costs to the respondent.

The respondent, a self-represented lawyer, successfully defended an appeal regarding a judgment for unpaid legal fees.

He sought costs of $9,787 based on his usual hourly rate.

The appellant argued for a significant reduction, asserting that self-represented lawyers should not be awarded costs as if they had retained counsel and emphasizing proportionality.

The court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis at $5,500 plus disbursements and GST, balancing the respondent's forgone remunerative activity with the need for proportionality given the $8,200 judgment.

The defendants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the plaintiff unpaid legal fees.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by refusing their request for an adjournment on the day of trial.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion by offering an adjournment on the reasonable condition that the appellants pay the claim amount into court, which they refused.

The appeal was dismissed.