3 total
The court awarded full indemnity costs against self-represented siblings who unreasonably opposed a guardianship application contrary to a prior settlement agreement.
This decision concerns a contested application regarding the guardianship of an incapable adult, Kathleen Power, and the resulting costs order.
The applicant, Karen Skinner, was successful in being appointed as guardian for property and personal care.
The court considered the effect of a prior settlement agreement and the conduct of the parties in determining costs, ultimately awarding full indemnity costs to the applicant, with a portion to be paid from the mother’s estate and the remainder personally by the unsuccessful, self-represented sisters.
The court upheld a 2019 option agreement to purchase a family farm despite capacity challenges but rejected handwritten documents as holograph wills.
The decision concerns the validity and testamentary effect of a 2019 Option Agreement, 2019 Wills, and two handwritten documents in the estate of Joyce Eileen Laur.
The applicant, Robert Jackson Laur, sought a declaration that the Option Agreement was valid and enforceable, and that at least one handwritten document constituted a holograph will.
The respondents argued incapacity and undue influence regarding the Option Agreement and challenged the testamentary intent of the handwritten documents.
The court found that the Option Agreement was valid and enforceable, as it reflected a longstanding intention and was not a new or complex decision for Grant Laur, despite his cognitive impairment.
The court also found that the handwritten documents did not reflect Joyce Laur’s fixed and final testamentary intention and thus had no testamentary import.
Minimal evidentiary threshold met for undue influence in Will challenge; production of records ordered.
The moving party sought to prove the 2017 Will of her late father, which left the estate entirely to her and disinherited her two brothers.
The respondent brothers challenged the Will, alleging lack of testamentary capacity, failure to know and appreciate the contents, and undue influence by the moving party.
The court found that the drafting solicitor's evidence substantially answered the concerns regarding capacity and knowledge.
However, the court found a minimal evidentiary basis existed regarding undue influence due to the potential for domination in the parent-child relationship and conflicting evidence.
The court ordered the production of solicitor and financial records and adjourned the motion for directions.