Martin Zatovkanuk

The appeal concerned a dispute over interpretation of a will and administration of testamentary trusts.

The appellant challenged the application judge's interpretation and sought appellate intervention on factual, legal, and discretionary grounds.

The court found no palpable and overriding error, no error of law, and no error in principle.

The appeal was dismissed.

On costs, the court directed that one trust absorb the corporate respondent's costs and the appellant's personal costs on a full indemnity basis without recoupment from the appellant personally due to an arguable ambiguity in the will.

Dispute over the calculation of a CPI-based Indexing Factor for annuity payments under a testamentary trust.

The testatrix's will established a testamentary trust providing the respondent beneficiary with an annuity, with the Indexing Factor to be determined by the trustees using the Consumer Price Index.

The respondent beneficiary challenged the trustee's CPI calculation methodology, arguing the wrong CPI chart, wrong date, and wrong calculation approach were used.

The court held that the will conferred discretion on the trustees to determine the Indexing Factor, and that determination was conclusive and binding on all beneficiaries absent bad faith.

In the alternative, the court found the trustee's calculations were correct, consistent with Statistics Canada methodology and the will's terms.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant from dealing with estate assets and sought orders directing third parties to release hospital records, telephone records, and the defendant's will.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to strike the Statement of Claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and for being frivolous and an abuse of process.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a recognizable duty of care owed by the defendant, who was acting as attorney for personal care pursuant to a valid power of attorney.

The court struck the claim without leave to amend and dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding it was motivated by personal turmoil and collateral purposes rather than a viable legal claim.

The plaintiff's counsel brought a motion to be removed from the record in an action arising from mortgage advice and financing arrangements for a condominium purchase in Toronto.

The plaintiff opposed the removal.

The court found that the lawyer-client relationship was irreparably broken due to loss of trust and respect on both sides.

The court granted the removal order, dispensed with certain procedural requirements, and afforded the plaintiff 45 days to retain new counsel or be deemed to have served notice of intention to act in person.

No costs were awarded.

The court fixes costs in a dispute over the administration and interpretation of the John Szewczyk Testamentary Trust, specifically regarding the calculation of indexed payments to a beneficiary.

The court reviews the parties' positions, the applicable legal principles for costs in estate litigation, and the proportionality of the legal fees claimed.

Ultimately, the court orders that all parties' reasonable costs be paid from the trust, but reduces the amounts claimed by the applicant and one respondent due to concerns about excessiveness and proportionality.

The court considered motions regarding the limitation periods applicable to a counter-application and Family Law Act claims in the estate of Murray Gibbons.

Emilia Gibbons sought to dismiss Edward Gibbons' counter-application as statute-barred, while the respondents sought to dismiss Emilia's Family Law Act claims for the same reason.

The court found the counter-application was out of time and dismissed it, but granted an extension for Emilia's Family Law Act claims, allowing them to proceed.

The court considered motions regarding the limitation periods applicable to a counter-application and Family Law Act claims in the estate of Murray Gibbons.

Emilia Gibbons sought to dismiss Edward Gibbons' counter-application as statute-barred, while the respondents sought to dismiss Emilia's Family Law Act claims for the same reason.

The court found the counter-application was out of time and dismissed it, but granted an extension for Emilia's Family Law Act claims, allowing them to proceed.

The court considered the proper interpretation of annuity and indexing provisions in the John Szewczyk Testamentary Trust, specifically whether the annuity should be indexed annually or only once at inception, and whether overpayments should be repaid.

The court held that the will’s language and surrounding circumstances supported a one-time indexing at the date of death, with subsequent increases limited to $5,000 every five years.

Overpayments made prior to January 1, 2024, are not recoverable due to a prior settlement, but overpayments after that date are to be recouped by postponing the next scheduled increase.

The defendant requested an order under Rule 2.1.01(6) to dismiss the plaintiff's action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff's claim alleged that the defendants facilitated a fake mortgage approval letter for a pre-construction property purchase.

The court declined to dismiss the action, finding that the claim did not have the hallmarks of a vexatious pleading and that issues regarding limitation periods, damages, and the plaintiff's alleged participation in the fraud required full argument rather than summary dismissal.

Robert Reed, a former employee and minority shareholder of Cooper-Gordon Ltd. (CGL), brought a motion for leave to appeal an arbitral decision on questions of law under s. 45 of the Arbitrations Act, 1991.

Reed sought to appeal the arbitrator's findings on wrongful dismissal notice period, unpaid bonuses and RRSP contributions, share valuation, and claims for punitive damages or oppression remedy.

The court granted leave to appeal on two issues: the mathematical error in calculating the wrongful dismissal notice period (one month difference) and the arbitrator's omission to address Reed's claims for unpaid RRSP and bonus payments from 2016-2019.

Leave was denied for the share valuation, oppression/punitive damages, and procedural fairness claims, as these were deemed questions of fact or mixed fact and law, or lacked sufficient legal merit.

The plaintiffs, Rosehaven Homes Limited and Bram-Rose Homes Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) after the defendants failed to close a real estate transaction.

The defendants argued the APS was invalid due to issues like lack of ID verification, unconscionability, wilful blindness, and that the plaintiffs failed to mitigate damages by refusing a vendor take-back mortgage.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of Rosehaven Homes Limited, finding no genuine issues requiring a trial.

The court dismissed the defendants' arguments regarding the APS's validity and mitigation, awarding damages and prejudgment interest to Rosehaven Homes Limited.

Following a five-day family trial between former common law spouses, the court determined parenting, property, child support, and spousal support issues.

Applying the best interests framework under the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court awarded the applicant sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the children, finding high conflict, family violence, poor communication, and a history of the respondent involving the children in parental conflict.

On the property issues, the court found that although the respondent initially retained a one-half beneficial interest in the applicant-titled condominium by resulting trust, the parties had engaged in a joint family venture and the respondent had been unjustly enriched by the applicant’s direct and indirect contributions, warranting a constructive trust remedy granting the applicant full ownership of that unit while the respondent retained his separate unit.

The court also imputed annual income of $72,000 to the respondent for child support purposes, ordered table child support, and awarded time-limited compensatory spousal support with a review-like reduction mechanism.

The moving defendants (sellers) sought summary judgment and forfeiture of a $20,000 deposit after the responding plaintiffs (buyers) failed to close a real estate transaction.

The buyers claimed they were entitled to rescind the agreement due to an incorrect square footage in the MLS listing and concerns over an open building permit.

The court found that the buyers had viewed the property and were aware of its size, meaning the MLS error was not a material misrepresentation.

Furthermore, the buyers failed to raise a valid objection to title regarding the building permit.

The court granted summary judgment to the sellers, finding the buyers defaulted on the transaction, and ordered the deposit forfeited as relief from forfeiture was not warranted.

The Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL) brought a motion to sell the estate's sole significant asset, a residential property, prior to trial.

The respondent, who resided in the property and claimed ownership under a disputed codicil, opposed the sale.

The court granted the motion, finding that the respondent had failed to comply with previous court orders regarding carrying costs and disclosure, had maximized the property's line of credit, and that the ETDL required estate funds to protect the asset and advance the litigation.

The applicant sought directions and the appointment of an Estate Trustee During Litigation following the respondent's non-compliance with a Mareva injunction and previous court orders.

The dispute involved allegations of undue influence, fraudulent codicils, and the unauthorized removal of funds from the deceased's estate.

The court found the respondent's non-compliance and explanations concerning, appointed an Estate Trustee During Litigation, and ordered the respondent to repay $120,000 to the estate and pay costs.

The plaintiffs moved for answers to undertakings and questions refused during the examination for discovery of the defendants.

The action concerned a claim for repayment of a loan and monies held for safekeeping.

The court applied the relevance test under Rule 31.06 and proportionality principles under Rules 29.2.03 and 1.04(1.1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Master ordered the defendants to answer most of the outstanding questions and produce financial documents, including bank statements and tax returns, for specified periods, finding them relevant to the pleadings and credibility.

The motion was substantially successful for the plaintiffs, who were awarded costs.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order dismissing his claim for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The motion judge had concluded that the accident was a straightforward rear-end collision and that the appellant, as the rear-ending party, failed to discharge his onus of proving the collision did not arise from his negligence.

The appellant challenged the motion judge's findings on three grounds: improper judicial notice of scientific and technical matters, misapprehension of evidence, and erroneous conclusion that there was no genuine issue requiring trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable error in principle or palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's assessment.

The plaintiff alleged false imprisonment and injuries sustained after leaving a Canadian Tire store.

The defendants sought summary judgment on liability for false imprisonment and remoteness of damages.

The court found the defendants liable for false imprisonment, establishing a limited "shopkeeper's privilege" in Canadian common law for temporary detention to investigate theft, but ruled that the defendants exceeded its parameters by detaining the plaintiff to delete video footage.

However, the court found the plaintiff's claimed injuries sustained after leaving the store were too remote, applying an objective standard of foreseeability for a person of ordinary fortitude.

The plaintiff brought an action for damages arising from a rear-end motor vehicle collision where he struck the defendants' vehicle from behind.

The defendants and the plaintiff's insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court found that the physical evidence and the consistent testimony of the defendants established that the defendants were stopped at a red light when struck.

The plaintiff's evidence was inconsistent and evolved over time.

Applying the test for summary judgment, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, found the plaintiff entirely at fault, and dismissed the action.