Robert A. Rastorp

This is a costs decision following an unsuccessful three-week trial where Robert Mark Roe challenged his mother's will and inter vivos gifts.

The court dismissed both actions (Will Action and Gift Action).

The decision addresses the costs sought by Randall Scott Roe (an estate trustee and successful respondent) and Raymond Christopher Roe (another estate trustee).

The court fixed costs, ordering Mark Roe to pay Randall Scott Roe $330,000 in all-inclusive costs, the estate to cover $260,338.03 of Randall's litigation costs, and Randall to be personally responsible for the balance.

Raymond Christopher Roe was reimbursed $170,000 from the estate for his conciliatory approach.

The applicant challenged his mother's Will, which disinherited him, arguing she lacked testamentary capacity, suffered from insane delusions, and was unduly influenced by his brother.

The court found that while the Will was executed under suspicious circumstances, the respondents successfully proved the testator had testamentary capacity and was not operating under insane delusions.

The court held that the testator's reasons for disinheriting the applicant, though perhaps unreasonable or based on misunderstandings, were grounded in actual events and did not amount to insane delusions.

The applicant also failed to prove undue influence.

The application and related action were dismissed.

This motion concerned an application for security for costs brought by the Estate Trustee against an appellant who had previously objected to the probate of a will and then withdrew her objection, but subsequently appealed the validity of the will.

The court found that the appeal appeared devoid of merit and vexatious, noting the appellant's lack of evidentiary support for her claims and her non-residency in Ontario with insufficient assets.

The motion for security for costs was granted, requiring the appellant to deposit $20,000, and costs of the motion were awarded to the Estate Trustee.

The applicant sought a stay of production and examination orders pending his application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The applicant's father was adjudged bankrupt in Hong Kong, and foreign representatives obtained recognition of the Hong Kong bankruptcy proceeding in Ontario.

The applicant challenged the procedural regularity of the initial recognition order, arguing the bankrupt was not given proper notice.

The Court of Appeal granted a conditional stay, requiring the applicant to produce specified documents and file an affidavit of full production by October 9, 2019, with sealed documents to remain sealed pending the Supreme Court's disposition of the leave application.

The plaintiff, Tracey Kanak, sued her former manager, Darryl Riggin, for defamation based on statements made during a job reference.

The plaintiff alleged malice, while the defendant pleaded qualified privilege and denied malice.

The court found the statements defamatory but concluded they were made on an occasion of qualified privilege.

The plaintiff failed to prove malice, as the defendant's testimony was credible and his statements were honest and not reckless.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's alternative claims (breach of contract, intentional interference, infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy) as they were deemed "dressed up" pleadings of defamation, resting on the same impugned publications.

The action was dismissed in its entirety.

The defendants brought a motion seeking leave to bring a summary judgment motion and to amend their statement of defence to add a limitations defence.

The court granted leave to amend the statement of defence, conditional on the defendants paying $1500 to the plaintiff for associated costs.

However, the court denied leave to bring a summary judgment motion, emphasizing the plaintiff's right to a jury trial and the principles of proportionality and access to justice, particularly given the plaintiff's unique circumstances and the imminent trial date.

The court found that allowing a summary judgment motion would be unjust and unfair, potentially jeopardizing the scheduled jury trial.