Joel Reinhardt

Following a successful application to remove the respondents as trustees of a family trust, the applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis payable by the trustees personally.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs payable by the trustees personally, finding their conduct unreasonable but not reprehensible.

The balance of the applicant's full indemnity costs was ordered to be paid from the family trust.

The trustees were denied indemnification from the estate for their own costs due to their unreasonable conduct.

The moving parties sought to settle an order denying leave to appeal to the Divisional Court by inserting a provision transferring the appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The responding party opposed the request, arguing that substantive relief not requested in the original motion cannot be sought during an appointment to settle an order.

The court agreed, holding that a motion to settle an order is procedural and declined to vary the order as signed by the Registrar.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order removing them as trustees of a family trust and replacing them with a bank.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, holding that an order removing a trustee is a final order, not an interlocutory one.

Therefore, any appeal of the order must be brought to the Court of Appeal, not the Divisional Court.

The applicants and respondent brought cross-motions for refusals arising from cross-examinations in an application to evict the respondent from his parents' former home.

The applicants brought the application as trustees of an alter ego trust.

The court ordered the applicants to produce the trust's deed of settlement as it was foundational to their standing, but declined to order production of the mother's will or medical records.

The respondent was ordered to produce his ODSP statements, tax returns, and available receipts to support his claim of financial dependence.

The applicant sought the removal of the respondents as trustees of a family trust, alleging mismanagement, failure to account, and bad faith.

The trustees had made over $3 million in undocumented, unsecured loans to themselves and their children, failed to pass accounts for over a decade, and attempted to dictate the terms of the applicant's will in exchange for continuing his monthly trust payments.

The court found that the trustees' conduct was so unreasonable that no honest or fair-dealing trustee would have acted in that way, and that they failed to act impartially despite having absolute discretion.

The application was granted, the trustees were removed, and an institutional trustee was appointed in their place.

The applicant brought a motion to strike an affidavit sworn by his mother, one of the respondent trustees, on the basis that she was not produced for cross-examination due to concerns about her capacity.

The applicant argued that admitting the affidavit would prejudice the fair hearing of his application to remove the trustees and would be an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant had not availed himself of opportunities to cross-examine the affiant with accommodations or to seek court directions earlier.

The court held that the affidavit should be admitted, with the lack of cross-examination going to the weight of the evidence to be determined at the hearing.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce undertakings and refusals from cross-examinations and for leave to file a supplementary affidavit in the context of an oppression application.

The court held that questions regarding the existence of directors' and officers' insurance policies need not be answered, as the rules compelling disclosure of insurance in actions do not apply to applications where discovery is not available.

However, questions regarding the corporation's financial statements were ordered to be answered.

The court also granted the applicant leave to file a supplementary affidavit based on newly disclosed financial information.

The appellant sought to set aside a motion judge's order dismissing her motion to set aside the administrative dismissal of her appeal.

The appeal had been administratively dismissed twice due to the appellant's repeated failure to meet perfection deadlines, despite extensions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's motion, finding no basis to interfere with the motion judge's discretion, noting the extensive delay, the unconvincing justification for non-perfection, and the lack of proof for the appellant's claims of material tampering or respondent non-cooperation.

The appellant appealed a Master's decision appointing an Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL) to manage an intestate estate.

The appellant argued the Master exceeded her jurisdiction by effectively removing her as administrator and authorizing the ETDL to distribute the residue of the estate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Master's decision to appoint an ETDL due to the adversarial relationship between the parties.

However, the court noted that certain provisions of the resulting order exceeded the Master's jurisdiction and directed the parties to amend the order or return to the Master.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision which found that no settlement agreement existed between the parties.

The appellant argued the motion judge provided insufficient reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge applied the correct legal test, adequately summarized the viva voce evidence, and reasonably concluded there was no meeting of the minds.

The applicants, minority co-owners of two commercial properties, sought relief from alleged oppressive conduct, breach of trust, and breach of fiduciary duty by the majority co-owners and property managers following a cash call.

The court found that the respondents' failure to provide timely and meaningful access to financial records unfairly disregarded and prejudiced the applicants' interests under section 248 of the Business Corporations Act.

However, the court dismissed claims regarding management fees, financing, and conflicts of interest, and found no breach of trust or fiduciary duty.

The court ordered specific terms for future financial disclosure and governance but declined to order a forced buy-out of the applicants' interests.

Costs for the disclosure motion were awarded to the applicants on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant sought to prove a lost will where the original could not be found after the testator's death.

The next-of-kin respondents argued that the presumption of intentional destruction by the testator had not been rebutted, which would result in an intestacy.

The court reviewed the testator's organized nature, her consistent statements affirming the sole beneficiary, and her understanding of the consequences of intestacy.

The court found sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of revocation and admitted a copy of the will to probate.

The parties, brothers and joint owners of a real estate development company, terminated their business relationship via a share purchase agreement.

The plaintiff was to receive 50% of the after-tax profits of a specific subdivision (Forest Creek) as part of the purchase price for his shares.

A dispute arose over the calculation of these profits and other related payments.

The court found that the defendant was not under a fiduciary obligation to the plaintiff and that the contract was not unfair.

The court interpreted the contract to mean the plaintiff was only entitled to profits from the Forest Creek subdivision and not other projects.

The court made specific findings on the calculation of profits, shareholder loan adjustments, and other payments, ultimately finding the defendant owed the plaintiff a significant sum.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment against the defendants for improper use of a power of attorney.

The court found that issue estoppel applied based on previous trial findings that a defendant had misused the power of attorney for personal gain without the plaintiff's permission.

The plaintiff was awarded compensatory damages plus prejudgment interest.

The claim for punitive damages was denied, as the amount fell within Small Claims Court jurisdiction and a defendant had modest financial resources and recently declared bankruptcy.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff, balancing the defendant's breach of trust with the plaintiff's choice to bring the action in Superior Court despite the monetary amount.

The appellant municipality appealed the property tax assessment of a vacant lot owned by a non-profit service organization, arguing it should be classified as industrial rather than residential.

The municipality contended that the non-profit did not 'occupy' the vacant land as required by the regulation.

The Assessment Review Board found that 'occupy' means having control over the property, which the owner possessed.

The Board also determined that the definition of 'land' in the regulation includes 'vacant land'.

The appeal was dismissed and the residential classification was confirmed.

A national student federation sought declarations that a student union remained a member and owed unpaid membership fees after the union held a referendum purporting to withdraw from the federation.

The court held the referendum invalid because it did not comply with the federation’s bylaws governing defederation, including requirements that a petition from individual student members initiate the process and that proper notice be provided.

The court found the referendum had been initiated and orchestrated by the student union’s executive rather than by individual members, contrary to the bylaws, and that other procedural requirements were not followed.

Because the referendum was invalid, the student union remained a member of the federation and was contractually obligated to remit membership fees.

Damages were awarded for unpaid fees accrued since the purported withdrawal.