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.

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."

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.