Lauren Hope Grimaldi

The court addressed two applications concerning the will of Sidky Nassif: an interpretation application by Bishop Moussa and a rectification application by Sarwat Mansour, the estate trustee.

The central issue was the disposition of Mr. Nassif's house, specifically whether it should pass to Bishop Moussa as part of the residue or to Mr. Nassif's brother, Shoukry Messieh, after his sister Yvonne Nassif's life estate.

The court found the will ambiguous and that Bishop Moussa's interpretation led to an absurd result inconsistent with the testator's intentions.

Applying the "armchair rule" and considering extrinsic evidence, including solicitor's notes, the court concluded there was a drafting error.

Bishop Moussa's application for interpretation was dismissed, and Sarwat Mansour's application for rectification was granted, amending the will to ensure the house transferred to Shoukry Messieh upon Yvonne Nassif's death.

The applicant, Muhammad Iqbal Khan, sought injunctive relief and other orders related to the estate of his deceased former spouse.

The respondent, Muhammad Ali Khan, the estate trustee, brought a motion for security for costs against the applicant and to convert the application to an action.

The court granted the respondent's motion for security for costs, finding the applicant failed to establish impecuniosity or a good chance of success on his claims, and converted the application to an action.

The court also granted a limited preservation order for the deceased's former residence but dismissed most of the applicant's requested injunctive relief, including an accounting.

Costs for a previous motion were awarded to the respondent, while costs for the current injunctive relief motion were reserved.

Following a summary judgment motion in a franchise dispute, the court addressed costs after the moving party was largely unsuccessful except for striking a jury notice.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the motion had little chance of success, while the defendant argued costs should be reserved or limited because the motion was reasonably brought.

The court held that although the motion was not unreasonable, the unsuccessful party should ordinarily pay the successful party’s costs of the motion.

Applying the Rules of Civil Procedure and considering duplication of effort and partial success on the jury issue, the court fixed partial indemnity costs at $50,000 inclusive of disbursements and tax.

The defendant franchisor brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing the franchisees’ action on the basis of a mutual release signed following the failure of the franchised restaurant, and alternatively sought partial summary judgment dismissing a statutory rescission claim under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000.

The plaintiffs argued the release was unenforceable due to unconscionability and statutory invalidity, and that disclosure deficiencies entitled them to rescind within the two‑year period applicable where no compliant disclosure document is provided.

The court held that genuine issues requiring a trial existed regarding the enforceability of the mutual release, including potential unconscionability, lack of legal advice, and imbalance of bargaining power.

The court also found that determining whether the disclosure requirements were satisfied under the statute required a full evidentiary record and could not be resolved on summary judgment.

However, the court struck the plaintiffs’ jury notice based on the contractual waiver and the equitable nature of certain relief sought.