Lisa S. Toner

The applicant, as estate trustee, sought the court's advice and direction on three issues: the beneficial ownership and exigibility of a residential property (Concession Road Property), the legal validity of an insurance policy trust for the deceased's children, and leave to assign the estate into bankruptcy.

The court found that the Concession Road Property was beneficially owned by the deceased's ex-wife and was not exigible for estate creditors.

It also determined that the purported insurance policy trust was not legally binding due to precatory language and lack of certainty of subject matter.

Finally, the court denied leave for the estate to be assigned into bankruptcy, finding the applicant had not sufficiently proven the estate's insolvency.

The applicant trustee brought a motion for a final passing of accounts, approval of trustee compensation, approval of legal fees, and costs of prior related motions.

One of the respondent beneficiaries objected to the trustee's compensation and legal fees, and argued that the estate should bear the costs of the prior litigation.

The court approved the trustee's compensation and legal accounts, finding them reasonable given the complex and contentious nature of the estate administration.

The court ordered the objecting beneficiary to personally pay the costs of a doomed capital repairs motion and 80% of the original passing of accounts motion, but ordered the estate to bear the costs of a will interpretation motion as it raised a public policy issue regarding ambiguities in the will.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of a will regarding the disposition of a cottage property and its sale proceeds.

The estate trustee sought directions on how to distribute the proceeds among the testator's grandchildren.

The motion judge ruled for equal distribution among the four surviving grandchildren.

The appellant, a grandchild, appealed, seeking a larger share based on a different interpretation of the will's clauses.

The respondents cross-appealed on the motion judge's reasoning, not the outcome.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, affirming the motion judge's decision that the proceeds should be distributed equally among the four grandchildren alive at the end of the life interests, based on the testator's intention as determined through the "armchair rule."

The applicant and respondent are brothers and co-executors of their father's estate.

The applicant sought a declaration that five joint bank accounts held by the deceased and the respondent were held in trust for the estate.

The respondent argued the accounts were gifted to him to equalize lifetime gifts made to the applicant.

The court found the respondent failed to corroborate his evidence under s. 13 of the Evidence Act and failed to rebut the presumption of a resulting trust.

The court also dismissed arguments that the claim was statute-barred or precluded by a release, as the applicant was unaware of the accounts when the release was signed.

The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant half the value of the accounts.

In this estate-related costs endorsement, the applicant had sought accounting relief concerning the respondent's dealings under a power of attorney and as estate trustee.

The court held it was reasonable to commence the application because key financial information only emerged through the respondent's responding affidavits, but it was not reasonable for the applicant to persist in demanding a formal accounting after disclosure was substantially provided and cross-examinations were offered.

Applying the costs discretion under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, Rule 57.01, and considering the respondent's offer to settle, the court fixed partial indemnity costs on an offset basis.

Net costs of $3,750.00 inclusive of HST and disbursements were awarded to the applicant.

A residuary beneficiary and co-estate trustee sought an order compelling his brother to pass accounts both as attorney for property under a power of attorney and as estate trustee of their late father’s estate.

The applicant alleged questionable financial transactions totaling over $145,000 and argued that piecemeal disclosure was insufficient.

The court held that while beneficiaries and co-trustees may seek an accounting under the Substitute Decisions Act and Estates Act, the remedy is discretionary.

Because the respondent had provided explanations through affidavit evidence and agreed to be cross‑examined, the court declined to order a formal passing of accounts at this stage.

The applicant retained the right to seek further directions or a formal accounting if cross‑examination proved inadequate.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal a costs order of $32,307.14 made following a three-day trial under the Simplified Rules where both the claim and counterclaim were dismissed.

The plaintiff argued the costs were disproportionate and inconsistent with similar cases.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the trial judge's order and noting that the trial judge was alive to the issue of proportionality.