Lionel Tupman

The plaintiff, acting as estate trustee for her deceased mother, brought an action against her brother claiming the mother's estate had a beneficial interest in a property registered solely in the brother's name.

The mother had contributed $10,000 to the down payment when the property was purchased in 1980, and lived there until her death in 2018.

The court found that the brother failed to rebut the presumption of a purchase money resulting trust regarding the $10,000 contribution.

The court awarded the estate a 26% beneficial interest in the net sale proceeds of the property, amounting to $115,900.44, plus $10,000 in damages for the brother's improper disposal of the mother's personal property.

Claims of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty were dismissed, and the action was found not to be statute-barred.

The applicant estate trustee brought a motion for an order appointing section 3 counsel under the Substitute Decisions Act for her father.

The respondents opposed the motion, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the underlying proceeding was not brought under the Substitute Decisions Act.

The court agreed with the respondents and dismissed the motion, holding that the plain wording of section 3(1) and relevant case law require the underlying proceeding to be under the Substitute Decisions Act for the court to have jurisdiction to appoint such counsel.

The applicant sought to remove his brother as co-Estate Trustee of their late father's estate and sought directions on the apportionment of the estate.

The respondent brought a cross-application seeking compensation for personal care services, interest, and other payments.

The court found the respondent to be in an irreconcilable conflict of interest due to his unauthorized use of estate funds, failure to comply with a prior settlement agreement, and procedurally flawed claims against the estate.

The court removed the respondent as an Estate Trustee, dismissed his cross-application, and directed that specific amounts be deducted from his share of the estate to reimburse the applicant.

In a long-standing and highly acrimonious family trust dispute, the court considered multiple motions, including motions to dismiss for delay and abuse of process, and motions for a further and better accounting.

The court found that the plaintiffs (two of the sons) had engaged in an abuse of process through a 'scorched-earth' litigation strategy, including failing to produce relevant documents they controlled, changing counsel repeatedly, refusing to mediate, and launching collateral attacks.

Consequently, the court dismissed their actions.

However, recognizing that the trusts still required an accounting for the benefit of the other beneficiaries (the grandchildren), the court ordered the remaining trustees to provide a further and better accounting, and ordered the redemption of the matriarch's shares in the underlying holding company.

The moving party, in the midst of complex family trust litigation, sought leave to withdraw admissions made in a previous affidavit and to file three new affidavits.

The moving party argued the admissions regarding multi-million dollar shareholder loans were made inadvertently due to confusion and reliance on her former, now-deceased counsel.

The responding parties opposed, arguing the admissions were formal and the new evidence was an attempt to repair her case mid-hearing.

The court granted the motion, finding the admissions were likely inadvertent, raised a triable issue, and caused no non-compensable legal prejudice to the responding parties.

The court emphasized the need to decide the case on its true merits rather than a solicitor's or party's mistake.

Following the dismissal of a defendant’s summary judgment motion, the successful plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $85,000.

The moving party argued the amount was excessive, disproportionate to the damages claimed, and that substantial indemnity was unwarranted, also challenging inclusion of an expert report cost that the court previously found unhelpful.

The court confirmed that substantial indemnity costs are generally reserved for Rule 49 settlement consequences or reprehensible conduct, neither of which was present.

Applying the Rule 57.01 factors and proportionality, the court awarded partial indemnity costs and removed the expert report expense from recoverable disbursements.

The defendants moved to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation registered by the plaintiff over land in Mississauga, arguing that the plaintiff had no interest in the land, that there was material non‑disclosure in the ex parte application for the CPL, and that the plaintiff delayed unreasonably in seeking the certificate.

The plaintiff asserted that the parties had long contemplated the transfer of land for the construction of a Greek Orthodox church pursuant to agreements dating back to 1980.

The court held that the totality of the evidence demonstrated a reasonable claim to an interest in the land and a triable issue supporting the CPL.

The court further found that the plaintiff had provided sufficient disclosure on the ex parte motion and that the delay in seeking the CPL was reasonably explained.

Balancing the equities and the absence of demonstrated hardship to the defendants, the court concluded that maintaining the CPL was just.