Krystyne Rusek

The applicant was entirely successful at trial in setting aside a property transfer on the grounds of undue influence and resulting trust.

The applicant sought costs of $486,500 on a partial and substantial indemnity basis, citing the respondent's unreasonable conduct, breaches of court orders, and rejection of multiple settlement offers.

The court found the respondent unduly lengthened the proceeding and misappropriated funds.

However, applying principles of proportionality and noting some duplication in the applicant's dockets, the court fixed the applicant's all-inclusive costs at $300,000, payable from the respondent's net share of the property sale proceeds.

The moving party was successful on a motion to compel the estate trustee to pass accounts and sought costs on a substantial or partial indemnity basis.

The estate trustee argued that costs should be deferred or reduced due to unresolved issues in the main application, including whether there would be sufficient residue to pay legacies.

The court found that while the moving party was entitled to costs, the determination of the scale, amount, and who should pay (the estate or the trustee personally) was best deferred to the judge hearing the main application.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application for dependant support, the successful respondent sought costs against the applicant and a portion against the applicant's counsel personally.

The court applied the two-part test under Rule 57.07(1) and declined to order costs against counsel personally, finding it was not a clear case despite concerning conduct.

The court also declined to award substantial indemnity costs, but awarded the respondent $100,000 in partial indemnity costs against the applicant.

Counsel for the respondent in an estate dispute moved for a charging order and mortgage over the disputed property to secure unpaid and future legal fees.

The motion was brought mid-way through the proceeding, relying on s. 34 of the Solicitors Act and the court's inherent jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it premature because the property had not yet been 'recovered or preserved' through the solicitor's instrumentality, and there was insufficient evidence that the client was unable or unwilling to pay.

The court also declined to amend an existing preservation order to allow the registration of a mortgage, noting potential prejudice to the applicant's set-off claims.

Costs of $15,000 were awarded to the applicant, deferred until the final outcome of the application.

The Applicant sought dependant support from the Estates of his grandparents and uncle under the Succession Law Reform Act, and an order impressing assets with a trust.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Applicant was not a dependant of any of the deceaseds as he was not receiving regular support immediately before their deaths.

The court also found no evidence that his uncle had demonstrated a settled intention to treat him as a child of his family, nor was there a basis for a resulting trust, constructive trust, or proprietary estoppel claim.

The moving party, a beneficiary under her late mother's will, brought a motion for an order requiring the estate trustee to particularize estate assets and pass his accounts.

The estate trustee opposed the motion, arguing the request was overbroad and akin to a fishing expedition, and noted an ongoing dispute over a joint account held by the moving party and the deceased.

The court granted the motion, finding the moving party had a prima facie financial interest in the estate and the estate trustee had failed to provide a clear response regarding the estate's assets.

The court held the request was reasonable given that specific bequests had not been paid and the estate trustee asserted there might be insufficient assets.

In an ongoing estate litigation matter, the court determined costs for several preliminary steps, including the determination of an estate asset, production of solicitor files, an abandoned consolidation motion, and case management conferences.

The court awarded costs to the applicant and other beneficiaries, payable largely by the former estate trustees personally due to their improper conduct and conflicts of interest, with some portions payable by the estate.

Appeals from determinations made by an application judge regarding the will of the late Peter Trezzi.

The deceased operated a successful construction business through two corporations: Across Canada Construction Ltd. (ACC) and Trezzi Construction Ltd. (Trezzi Construction).

Peter was the sole shareholder of Trezzi Construction.

The central disputes concerned whether Peter could effectively bequeath assets held by Trezzi Construction to his son Albert; whether his wife Gina owned 50 per cent of ACC shares; and whether Gina was entitled to an extension of time to file a surviving spouse's election under the Family Law Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all three appeals, upholding the application judge's determinations on each issue.

The applicant, the separated spouse of the deceased, brought a motion for production of documents, repayment of legal fees to the estate, and interim support in the context of a dependant's relief application.

The deceased had left his entire estate to his sister, the respondent.

The court ordered the respondent to produce the required documents and repay $9,999.91 to the estate, finding she was in a conflict of interest by using estate funds to defend the claim in her personal capacity.

The court also found the applicant met the test for interim support and awarded her a lump sum of $30,000.

This costs endorsement followed multiple motions concerning the administration of the Estate of Peter Trezzi.

The court applied the modern approach to costs in estate litigation, considering public policy factors and the general civil litigation costs regime.

Costs were determined for four main matters: ownership of 18 Boyle Drive, extension of the applicant's Family Law Act rights, corporate assets, and share ownership of Across Canada Construction Ltd. The court also addressed costs for an adjournment motion, production orders, and consent orders.

The decision allocated costs between parties and the Estate, often finding that the Estate should bear costs due to issues arising from the deceased's actions or ambiguities in the will.

The applicants brought an application regarding the administration of an estate.

They sought an order that the estate not pay tax on an RRSP, which was dismissed as the Income Tax Act makes the estate liable.

The respondent sought costs of the application, arguing it was unnecessary.

The court denied the respondent's costs claim, finding that his own errors, misstatements, and conflicts of interest in administering the estate caused the applicants' mistrust and necessitated the application.

The applicant requested that a long motion, which had been struck from the list for failing to comply with a local practice direction requiring confirmation three weeks in advance, be reinstated.

The court denied the request, noting that judicial resources had already been reallocated and emphasizing that counsel are expected to be aware of published practice directions.

An elderly man married his much younger housekeeper, who subsequently pressured him into transferring his home to her son while retaining a life interest.

The plaintiff sought to set aside the transfer, while the defendants claimed a $120,000 loan, equalization of net family property, and quantum meruit for services rendered.

The court set aside the transfer, finding it was procured through undue influence and unconscionability.

The court dismissed the defendants' claims for the loan, equalization, and quantum meruit, finding the property was never a matrimonial home and the housekeeper's unclean hands barred equitable relief.

A divorce was granted.

Following reasons for judgment in three related proceedings involving family and civil claims concerning transfers of funds and marital issues, the court addressed costs.

The successful party sought recovery of substantial legal fees incurred across the proceedings.

The court considered proportionality, reasonableness, the complexity of the litigation, and conduct of the parties during the proceedings, including disclosure issues.

Exercising its discretion, the court fixed a global costs award inclusive of disbursements and taxes for all three proceedings.