Lisbeth A. Hollaman

The appellant and respondent, who are sisters, were involved in a long-running dispute over their deceased mother's estate.

The appellant sought to replace the respondent as Estate Trustee to pursue a claim against the respondent for breach of fiduciary duty.

A previous motion to replace the trustee with the appellant or a named friend had been dismissed.

The appellant brought a new application to appoint an unnamed independent trustee.

The motion judge dismissed the application under Rule 21, finding it was barred by issue estoppel.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming the appellant was not entitled to a second attempt to litigate substantially the same issue and that discretionary relief from issue estoppel was not warranted.

The estate trustee applied to pass her accounts as attorney for property and estate trustee for her deceased parents.

Her sister objected to the accounts, challenging the compensation claimed, the accounting of cash transactions, the valuation of the parents' home, and the payment of legal fees and roof repairs from the estate.

The court found the trustee's accounts to be accurate and the expenses reasonable.

The court adjusted the valuation of the home to $820,000 based on expert evidence but otherwise approved the accounts and the compensation claimed, finding it fair and reasonable.

The appellants appealed a judgment regarding their late mother's estate, challenging the trial judge's finding that the respondent simply effected the mother's instructions.

The appellants argued that the mother's physical disability and the amounts of money involved required an inference to the contrary.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to sustain the trial judge's conclusion that the mother was of full mental capacity and the respondent merely implemented her instructions.