Lisbeth Hollaman

The appellant appealed a motion judge's refusal to appoint her as estate trustee during litigation to pursue a claim against the respondent for breach of fiduciary duty owed to their late mother.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle, agreeing that the appellant would be in a conflict of interest.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding costs, finding the motion judge erred in ordering the appellant to pay full indemnity costs, and reduced the award to partial indemnity costs.

The appellant's husband, while acting as an estate trustee, misappropriated millions of dollars from an estate and used the funds to purchase and renovate a luxury matrimonial home, placing title in the appellant's name.

The motion judge granted partial summary judgment against the husband, imposed a constructive trust on the home in favour of the estate, and issued a vesting order.

The appellant appealed, arguing she had contributed her own funds to the home and that the vesting order was improper.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that all funds for the home's purchase and renovation came from the misappropriated estate funds, the vesting order was a proper exercise of discretion under section 100 of the Courts of Justice Act, and any notional entitlement the appellant had to reimbursement was offset by the financial benefits of living rent-free in the home for a decade.

The appellants appealed an order regarding the beneficiary designation of a life insurance policy.

The appellants had owned the policy for five years but were never named as beneficiaries.

They assigned ownership back to the deceased, who then designated the respondent as the irrevocable beneficiary.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the deceased was entitled to make the designation and that any prior declaration or trust agreements were overtaken by subsequent events.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.