Miriam Vale Peters

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order finding that a solicitor-client relationship existed between Paul Kasanda and the respondent law firm (KMH Lawyers and Miriam Vale Peters) for the purposes of an assessment of unpaid legal accounts under the Solicitors Act.

The appellants sought to remove Paul as a party to the assessment, arguing he was not a client and had not agreed to pay for legal services.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that sufficient indicia of a solicitor-client relationship existed based on the totality of the circumstances, including retainer agreements, communications, instructions, advice, and payment arrangements.

This is an estate dispute involving five members of the Zuccarini family concerning the estate of the late family patriarch and the management of defendant corporations.

The plaintiffs allege undue influence by one defendant over the deceased and his widow, challenge the validity of wills executed in 2019, and seek an oppression remedy regarding corporate management.

The court addressed a motion to appoint a litigation administrator for the estate, which had been stayed pending proper constitution of the proceedings.

The court appointed a neutral third-party lawyer as litigation administrator and determined that the estate and corporate defendants should bear the costs of the administrator's fees.

The applicant sought appointment as succeeding estate trustee of her late father's estate.

The applicant had previously challenged the validity of her father's will and codicil in a separate proceeding, which was settled in March 2023 with the applicant receiving the entire residue of the estate.

The applicant now sought to be appointed estate trustee to pursue a negligence claim against the lawyer who drafted the will to recover her personal legal fees incurred in the prior proceeding.

The court denied the application, finding that appointing the applicant would create a conflict of interest, that reopening the settled prior proceeding would constitute an abuse of process, and that a serious limitations issue existed under the Trustee Act.

The applicants, Dan Dunlap and Dunlap Law Professional Corporation, sought a charging order against settlement funds held in trust by Badre Law Professional Corporation for legal services provided to Carl Williams.

The court determined the principal amounts outstanding for four matters, but found that only the disbursements related to the personal injury matter were eligible for a charging order under the Solicitors Act.

The court granted a charging order for $857.20 plus interest at 3% per year, and dismissed the remainder of the application as statute-barred.

Costs were awarded only as previously ordered.

The decision concerns an application by Sheetza McGarry to appoint an interim Estate Trustee and obtain directions regarding the validity of a purported 2016 will and irrevocable life insurance beneficiary designations in the estate of Brian William McGarry.

The court reviews the suspicious circumstances surrounding the will and insurance changes, the renunciation of the named executors, and the positions of interested parties and non-parties.

The court refuses to dismiss the application, finds the applicant has met the evidentiary threshold to challenge the will, and appoints neutral third parties as Estate Trustees During Litigation (ETDLs).

Directions are given for the administration of the estate and the production of legal files.

The court considered an application for interim support and possession by the deceased’s common law spouse, Louise Gabrielle Nadeau, following the death of Joseph Jean Paul Aubut.

The applicant sought to remain in the property rent-free or, alternatively, to receive interim support.

The court found that the applicant was not entitled to interim support, as her need should be assessed only until the hearing, not for the rest of her life, and she had sufficient resources for that period.

The court further held that the applicant must pay occupation rent and utilities, as she had been unjustly enriched by living in the property without payment since the deceased’s death.

The court declined to order arrears and prohibited the limited estate from disposing of assets until the matter’s final determination.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion where the respondents (moving parties) unsuccessfully sought to remove Paul Kasanda as a party to an assessment application.

The applicants (lawyers) sought partial indemnity costs for successfully defending that motion.

The court awarded the applicants $10,000 in partial indemnity costs, finding them to be the more successful party, and that the amount was fair and reasonable considering the complexity and importance of the motion, despite some issues with document production.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to reflect the appointment of a litigation guardian and for a finding of contempt against the defendants for failing to attend discoveries.

The defendants sought an adjournment of the motion pending the hearing of a cross-motion to stay the action due to the plaintiffs' alleged lack of capacity and a pending guardianship application.

The court granted the adjournment and stayed the motion to amend, finding that the genuine issues concerning the plaintiffs' capacity and the suitability of the proposed litigation guardian needed to be determined first.

The plaintiffs withdrew their contempt request.

This case concerns an appeal from an arbitration award.

The applicants appealed an arbitrator's decision that found the respondent was entitled to 50% of corporate shares based on proprietary estoppel.

The court granted leave to appeal and set aside the arbitrator's award.

The court held that proprietary estoppel in Ontario is currently limited to interests in land and cannot be extended to other forms of property, such as shares, by an arbitrator.

Furthermore, the court found that the email on which the proprietary estoppel claim was based was internally inconsistent, ambiguous, and conditional, thus failing to meet the requirement for a clear and unequivocal promise.

The respondent's claim was dismissed.

The moving parties, respondents to an assessment application, sought an order removing Paul Kasanda as a party to the assessment, arguing he did not retain the applicant lawyers.

The lawyers had represented Paul's wife in estate litigation, but the written retainer was signed by Paul's company.

Applying the indicia of a lawyer-client relationship, the court found that a reasonable person would conclude the lawyers were acting for Paul, given his extensive communications, instructions, receipt of legal advice, and agreement to pay fees.

The motion to remove him as a party was dismissed.

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) brought a motion to pay the net proceeds from a power of sale of a property into court.

The defendant, Guy Lafond, and his former partner, Sherri Van de Hoef, along with the Family Responsibility Office (FRO), claimed entitlement to these funds, primarily for child support arrears.

The court determined the amounts owed to each party and established the priority of claims, with FRO and Ms. Van de Hoef's claims (including costs) taking precedence over RBC's remaining claim.

Due to Mr. Lafond's conduct in disputing the claims and causing adjournments without taking suggested steps, he was ordered to pay the costs of the other parties.

The funds in court were insufficient to fully satisfy all claims, leaving Mr. Lafond personally liable for the deficiency owed to RBC.

This decision addresses cross-applications for the removal of estate trustees in the Estate of Alfonso Sartarelli.

The deceased's two children, Elke Kasanda and Helmut Sartarelli, along with a solicitor, were appointed trustees.

The estate administration stalled due to significant conflict between Elke and Helmut.

Elke alleged Helmut prioritized his interests and was unfit, while Helmut accused Elke of obstructing administration, acting unilaterally, and disregarding fiduciary duties, particularly concerning tax payments.

The court dismissed Elke's application to remove Helmut, finding he acted reasonably and relied on professional advice.

Conversely, Helmut's application to remove Elke was granted, as the court found Elke had consistently prioritized personal grievances over fiduciary duties, obstructed necessary estate actions (like tax filings), disregarded professional advice, and acted unilaterally, thereby compromising the estate's proper administration and increasing costs.

The defendants brought a motion to vary an interlocutory injunction previously issued, seeking to reverse the ruling based on what they argued was new evidence—an alternative legal interpretation of a trust document regarding beneficiaries.

The court applied the test for admitting new evidence to vary a judgment, which requires that the evidence could not have been discovered sooner with reasonable diligence and might have altered the judgment.

The court found that an overlooked legal argument, even if conceded by previous counsel, does not constitute 'new evidence' under this test.

The motion to vary was dismissed.

The plaintiffs' cross-motion for further financial documentation and tracing of funds was also dismissed, as the existing certificates of pending litigation provided sufficient pre-judgment security and other matters were for estate administration.

This is an appeal of an arbitration award concerning the beneficial ownership of shares in a company.

The arbitrator had found that an email created an express trust, granting the respondent 50% of the applicant's personal shares.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding that the arbitrator erred in law by allowing the email to overwhelm the terms of a formal trust agreement.

The court varied the arbitrator's decision, ruling that only the formal Burwell Family Trust existed and the email did not create a separate express trust for the personal shares.

The court upheld the arbitrator's jurisdiction regarding the scope of the arbitration and his decision on the Limitations Act.

The issue of proprietary estoppel was remitted back to the arbitrator for determination and final disposition.

The applicants, who are the children and accountant of the respondent, brought an application for declarations that the respondent is incapable of managing property and personal care, and incapable of granting or revoking powers of attorney.

The respondent, an elderly man with significant real estate holdings, had executed powers of attorney in 2011 in favour of the applicants.

Following a stroke and cognitive decline, the applicants assumed management of his affairs.

Subsequently, the respondent married a new partner and executed new powers of attorney with the assistance of a friend.

The court reviewed competing capacity assessments and medical evidence, concluding that the respondent has been incapable of managing property and personal care since September 2017, and incapable of granting or revoking powers of attorney since November 2018.

The court affirmed the authority of the applicants under the 2011 powers of attorney.

The applicant sought specific performance to purchase a jointly owned property or, alternatively, an order for sale under the Partition Act.

The core dispute revolved around the enforceability and proper exercise of a right of first refusal clause in an agreement between the parties.

The court found that specific performance was not appropriate as damages would be an adequate remedy.

Crucially, the court determined that the right of first refusal was not properly exercised by either party due to lack of good faith and failure to follow the agreed-upon valuation mechanism.

Consequently, the parties remained joint owners until the property's eventual sale, and the net proceeds are to be shared equally, subject to an accounting for expenses and income.

The parties were unable to agree on costs following a motion and cross-motion in an estate litigation matter.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $26,625.06, while the defendant sought substantial indemnity costs of $25,038.54 or partial indemnity costs of $18,567.56.

The court found that the defendant was the more successful party, having prevailed on the appointment of an estate trustee during litigation and reimbursement of expenses.

The court rejected the plaintiff's request to reserve costs to the trial judge and fixed costs at $10,000 payable by the plaintiff to the defendant.

The plaintiff challenged his late mother's will, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by the defendant.

The plaintiff moved to appoint his ex-wife as the Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL) with powers to sell the deceased's property, while the defendant cross-moved to remove the plaintiff's notices of objection and for reimbursement of estate expenses.

The court maintained the primary notice of objection, appointed a neutral retired lawyer as ETDL with limited powers to preserve the property pending the will challenge, and ordered the estate to reimburse the defendant for expenses incurred.

This case involved motions to interpret a trust declaration concerning the deceased's house, executed the day before her death.

The declaration transferred title to two sons as joint tenants, acknowledging the deceased or her estate as the beneficial owner.

The dispute centered on whether the house sale proceeds should be distributed equally among heirs as per the trust (respondents' view) or form part of the estate and be distributed according to the will (applicant's view), which contained a specific condition for one heir.

The court upheld the trust's validity, rejecting arguments of it being a testamentary disposition or a sham.

However, it ruled that the proceeds belonged to the estate and must be distributed according to the will, as the trust declaration did not specify an alternative distribution method.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful appeal by 2651171 Ontario Inc. The Court of Appeal for Ontario determined the quantum of costs for the motions for summary judgment and the action.

The appellant sought substantial indemnity costs based on an offer to settle made under Rule 49.10(1).

The respondent, Patrick Brey, objected to the quantum and argued for a reduction due to the appellant's unproven allegations of fraud.

The court found the appellant prima facie entitled to substantial indemnity costs due to the offer to settle, but ordered a reduction in the total amount awarded due to the unfounded allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation made by the appellant, emphasizing that such serious allegations require strict pleading and proof.