Arieh Abraham Bloom

The applicants challenged the validity of a purported will dated September 10, 2020, allegedly made by Kenneth Ryan Hill, a wealthy status Indian and permanent resident of the Six Nations of the Grand River Reserve.

The will named the respondent, Mr. Hill's son, as executor and left his interest in Grand River Enterprises (worth approximately $38 million) to him, with bequests of $5 million to each of his other children (except two who received nothing or $3 million).

The applicants argued that Mr. Hill did not sign the will and did not know and approve of its contents.

The court found that the respondent failed to establish that Mr. Hill signed the purported will and that suspicious circumstances surrounded its execution.

The court also found that the respondent failed to prove that Mr. Hill knew and approved of the will's contents.

The purported will was declared invalid both under the Indian Act and at common law.

The applicant, husband of the deceased, sought an order compelling the respondents to answer refusals and provide better answers to undertakings given during cross-examinations in an estate application challenging a will and various transfers.

The applicant narrowed his motion to focus on communications-related refusals.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the broad, unlimited requests for all communications were not relevant and overly broad.

Where more limited requests had been made, the respondents had already provided substantive answers or produced documents where found.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the successful respondents.

The court considered whether to recognize and enforce a UK court order appointing deputies for the property and affairs of Marija Jurate Danilunas, who resides in England but has significant assets in Ontario.

The applicants sought either full recognition of the UK order or, alternatively, an ancillary order permitting them to access and use Ms. Danilunas’s Ontario assets.

The court reviewed the statutory and common law framework for recognition of foreign guardianship orders, the competing values of autonomy and protection of the vulnerable, and the public policy implications.

Ultimately, the court recognized and enforced the UK order, finding that the process and protections in the UK were sufficiently robust and that no public policy or procedural concerns justified refusing recognition.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Robert and Catherine Hurst, who challenged their removal as estate trustees of the Estate of Ruth Eileen Stevens MacBeth.

The court upheld the motion judge’s discretionary decisions to deny an adjournment, remove the Hursts as trustees, and order a $50,000 holdback from the estate.

The court found no error in the motion judge’s application of the legal tests and awarded costs against the appellants personally, concluding the appeal was unnecessary and not in the interests of the estate.

The applicants sought enforcement in Ontario of an English court order appointing them as deputies for Marija Jurate Danilunas, or alternatively, appointment as guardians under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992.

The court reviewed the evidentiary and legal requirements for recognition of foreign capacity orders, noting the lack of medical evidence and the absence of a statutory regime for automatic recognition of such orders from England.

The court raised several questions regarding the appropriate legal test for recognition of foreign in rem capacity orders, the role of public policy, and the need for further submissions from the parties and potentially interested intervenors.

No final order was made, and the matter was set for further case management.

Grand River Enterprises Six Nations Ltd. (GRE) appealed an order from the Superior Court of Justice requiring it, as a non-party, to produce financial documents for the valuation of shares held by a deceased in estates litigation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motions judge's discretionary decision.

The court found the documents relevant to the estate's valuation and the validity of the deceased's will, and that it would be unfair to proceed to trial without them.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motions judge's application of the Rule 30.10 test, emphasizing deference to the lower court's discretion and the effectiveness of the established Confidentiality Protocol in addressing GRE's concerns about privacy and business interests.

The applicant sought to suspend the appointment of the primary respondent as Estate Trustee and appoint an Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL), alleging conflicts of interest and mismanagement regarding the sale of an estate-owned property.

The primary respondent, supported by the co-respondent, opposed the application, arguing her actions were in the best interest of the estate and that the applicant was in conflict.

The court dismissed the application for an ETDL, finding no clear evidence to warrant the removal of the Estate Trustee, and instead ordered the Estate Trustee to proceed with listing the property for sale on the open market and to commence an application to pass her accounts.

The applicant, Millie Reville, sought to validate a 2019 will naming her as the estate trustee and primary beneficiary of Mark Weeks' estate, claiming to be his common-law spouse.

The respondent, Vania Weeks, the deceased's separated spouse and estate trustee under a 2008 will, challenged the 2019 will's validity, alleging it was not properly signed or was procured by undue influence.

The court heard oral testimony from the 2019 will's witnesses and considered expert forensic document examiner reports.

The court found the 2019 will was duly executed and dismissed the undue influence claim.

The applicant was appointed estate trustee, and the respondent was ordered to return estate property and reimburse funds improperly disbursed.

The applicant, as estate trustee, sought the court's advice and direction on three issues: the beneficial ownership and exigibility of a residential property (Concession Road Property), the legal validity of an insurance policy trust for the deceased's children, and leave to assign the estate into bankruptcy.

The court found that the Concession Road Property was beneficially owned by the deceased's ex-wife and was not exigible for estate creditors.

It also determined that the purported insurance policy trust was not legally binding due to precatory language and lack of certainty of subject matter.

Finally, the court denied leave for the estate to be assigned into bankruptcy, finding the applicant had not sufficiently proven the estate's insolvency.

This motion concerned the removal of RSM Canada Limited as the Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL) of the Estate of Peter Trezzi and as the court-appointed Manager of two corporations.

The moving party, Albert Trezzi, also sought the appointment of himself and his two sisters as Estate Trustees.

RSM did not oppose its discharge but sought a holdback for professional fees related to a pending passing of accounts.

The court granted the removal of RSM and the appointment of the new Estate Trustees, and ordered a holdback of $250,000 for RSM's fees, finding it equitable and consistent with public policy, despite the beneficiaries' objections to the quantum.

The appellants, parents of a brain-injured son, appealed a trial judge's decision on the passing of accounts for a trust they administered.

The trial judge found significant mismanagement, including a failure to account for over $165,000, fabrication of receipts, and improper cash administration, ordering them to repay funds, prejudgment interest, and costs.

The appellants challenged the disallowance of expenses, the failure to consider quantum meruit/equitable set-off, the denial of legal fee indemnity, and prejudgment interest calculation.

The respondent cross-appealed, arguing the accounts should not have been passed given the breaches and that no trustee compensation should have been awarded.

The Court of Appeal largely affirmed the trial judge's findings, making only minor adjustments for calculation errors, and dismissed the cross-appeal, emphasizing the high onus on trustees to account and the deference owed to trial judges' factual findings in such complex cases.

The applicant, Mary Susan McKee, sought a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee with a Will for the estate of John Andrew McKee.

The respondent, Jennifer Vlasiu, objected, claiming a financial interest due to alleged fraud by the deceased regarding a property sale and seeking damages.

The court dismissed the respondent's objection, finding that her claims were not properly brought in a probate proceeding and that she lacked the necessary financial interest under Rule 75.03 as a creditor.

The court also found the respondent's conduct during the litigation to be reprehensible, scandalous, and outrageous, warranting an award of full indemnity costs to the applicant.

This endorsement addresses costs for two motions: John James's motion to remove Lory James as Estate Trustee and appoint an Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL), and Lory James and Glacier Trading Corporation's motion to strike John's counterclaim.

The court previously granted the appointment of an ETDL and dismissed the motion to strike the counterclaim.

The court determined that costs should be fixed immediately rather than reserved for trial, emphasizing the "loser pays" principle in estate litigation.

John James was deemed the overall successful party on his motion, and entirely successful on the motion to strike.

The court awarded John James $10,000 in costs against Lory James personally for his motion, and $5,500 jointly and severally against Lory James and Glacier Trading Corporation for their unsuccessful motion to strike.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario addressed costs for both the appeal and the underlying summary judgment motion.

The parties agreed to no costs for the appeal due to divided success.

For the summary judgment motion, the court declined to award costs to the primary appellants (Bistricer) or respondents (Rubner), citing reasons such as new arguments on appeal and divided success.

However, the litigation guardian for Eda Rubner, who was aligned with the original applicants, was awarded partial recovery of costs for the summary judgment motion.

The appellant appealed a lower court's decision, challenging the admissibility of a recording and the finding that a joint tenancy had been severed.

The Court of Appeal rejected the argument regarding the recording's inadmissibility, finding it relevant and admissible.

The court also found no basis to interfere with the application judge's decision on joint tenancy severance, as it was a fact-specific inquiry.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the estate, noting the litigation was necessitated by the deceased's actions.

This appeal concerns a financial dispute among adult siblings over entitlement to distributions from a valuable investment in a residential development in Oakville, Ontario.

The investment, originally a 10% interest in the Lower Fourth Joint Venture purchased by the father in 1969, was held by the mother in trust for three children in equal shares.

The daughter disclaimed her interest for tax reasons.

When distributions began in 2014, they were deposited into bank accounts opened in the mother's name.

The central issue was whether the mother held the distributions as bare trustee for the daughter or whether the daughter had received only individual gifts.

The Court of Appeal found that a bare trust existed over the bank account contents for the benefit of both the daughter and one son in equal shares, reversing the trial judge's finding that the mother held the funds beneficially.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a prior ruling where Salvatore Benedetto was unsuccessful against 2453912 Ontario Inc. Benedetto argued for no costs, claiming the legal issue regarding deposit forfeiture under s. 21(4) of the Business Corporations Act was "novel." 2453912 Ontario Inc. sought costs, including substantial indemnity based on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court rejected the "novelty" argument, finding existing case law provided adequate guidance.

It also declined substantial indemnity, noting the Rule 49 offer lacked compromise and the underlying issue, while complex, presented reasonable uncertainty.

Partial indemnity costs of $10,000 were awarded to 2453912 Ontario Inc.

Miriam Stein, 90, has a feeding tube.

Her three daughters, Helen Brunswick, Frieda Oren, and Gloria Stein, were joint attorneys for personal care.

Gloria opposed the feeding tube, while Helen and Frieda supported it.

They entered into "Minutes of Settlement" for a geriatric assessment to guide decisions on the feeding tube.

When the tube needed replacement, they disagreed.

Gloria resigned as attorney for personal care, believing the Minutes would protect her position.

Helen and Frieda proceeded with the replacement.

Gloria subsequently sought to enforce the Minutes for a specific assessment.

The court found the Minutes were not a legally binding agreement, lacking offer, acceptance, consideration, and certainty of terms, and became moot upon Gloria's resignation.

The court dismissed Gloria's motion and application, and exempted Helen and Frieda from consulting Gloria on matters related to Miriam's feeding tube due to irreconcilable differences.

The appellant signed an agreement for purchase and sale of real property as a buyer "in trust for a company to be incorporated without any personal liabilities" and provided a $100,000 deposit.

When the appellant advised the vendor that he would not close the transaction, the vendor refused to return the deposit.

The motion judge granted summary judgment in favour of the vendor, finding that the deposit was forfeited.

The appellant appealed, arguing that section 21(4) of the Business Corporations Act, which exempts pre-incorporation contract signatories from personal liability, should also exempt them from forfeiture of the deposit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a deposit stands as security for performance of the contract and is distinct from the purchaser's contractual obligations.

The court found that the phrase "without any personal liabilities" did not extend to the deposit, as the contract contained no express provision to that effect, and such a contrary intention must be expressly stated.

A commercial real estate deal involving three properties failed to close.

The plaintiff, NJS Capital Management Inc., brought a summary judgment motion for breach of contract, while the defendants counterclaimed, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, seeking rectification, or rescission based on unconscionability, arguing the deals were cross-conditional and a package.

The court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, finding the defendants breached the contracts and dismissing the counterclaims, concluding there was no oral agreement for cross-conditionality or misrepresentation, and the contracts were not unconscionable.