Lisbeth A. Hollaman

The applicant challenged his father's will and property transfers, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by his sister.

The applicant sought an order for directions to proceed to trial and obtain third-party financial, medical, and legal files.

The court found that the applicant met the minimal evidentiary threshold required to put the will's validity into question, particularly regarding undue influence, citing the father's complaints of control by the respondent, the lawyer's refusal to act on initial instructions, and the malleability of the father's testamentary intentions.

The motion for directions was granted, allowing the case to proceed to discovery and trial.

The appellant and respondent, who are sisters, were involved in a long-running dispute over their deceased mother's estate.

The appellant sought to replace the respondent as Estate Trustee to pursue a claim against the respondent for breach of fiduciary duty.

A previous motion to replace the trustee with the appellant or a named friend had been dismissed.

The appellant brought a new application to appoint an unnamed independent trustee.

The motion judge dismissed the application under Rule 21, finding it was barred by issue estoppel.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming the appellant was not entitled to a second attempt to litigate substantially the same issue and that discretionary relief from issue estoppel was not warranted.

The appellant appealed an order passing the accounts of the respondent, who acted as Attorney for Property and Estate Trustee for their parents.

The trial judge had awarded the respondent compensation of $129,861.05 and ordered the appellant to personally pay full indemnity costs of $192,000.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, finding the trial judge erred in awarding a care and management fee for the Estate Trustee period and in calculating a deduction from the appellant's share of the residue.

The Court also granted leave to appeal the costs order, substituting a blended order requiring the appellant to pay partial indemnity costs of $115,200, with the balance of the respondent's legal costs payable from the estate.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's refusal to appoint her as estate trustee during litigation to pursue a claim against the respondent for breach of fiduciary duty owed to their late mother.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle, agreeing that the appellant would be in a conflict of interest.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding costs, finding the motion judge erred in ordering the appellant to pay full indemnity costs, and reduced the award to partial indemnity costs.

The court determined the costs of an appeal regarding the passing of accounts where success was divided.

The respondent was substantially successful on the compensation appeal, while the appellant was successful on the costs appeal, avoiding approximately $45,000 in personal costs.

As a result, no costs of the appeal were awarded.

However, because the appellant had made an offer to settle the costs issue on the same basis as the court's finding, the appellant was awarded $1,500 for the expense of making written costs submissions.

The estate trustee applied to pass her accounts as attorney for property and estate trustee for her deceased parents.

Her sister objected to the accounts, challenging the compensation claimed, the accounting of cash transactions, the valuation of the parents' home, and the payment of legal fees and roof repairs from the estate.

The court found the trustee's accounts to be accurate and the expenses reasonable.

The court adjusted the valuation of the home to $820,000 based on expert evidence but otherwise approved the accounts and the compensation claimed, finding it fair and reasonable.

The appellants appealed a judgment regarding their late mother's estate, challenging the trial judge's finding that the respondent simply effected the mother's instructions.

The appellants argued that the mother's physical disability and the amounts of money involved required an inference to the contrary.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to sustain the trial judge's conclusion that the mother was of full mental capacity and the respondent merely implemented her instructions.

The appellant's husband, while acting as an estate trustee, misappropriated millions of dollars from an estate and used the funds to purchase and renovate a luxury matrimonial home, placing title in the appellant's name.

The motion judge granted partial summary judgment against the husband, imposed a constructive trust on the home in favour of the estate, and issued a vesting order.

The appellant appealed, arguing she had contributed her own funds to the home and that the vesting order was improper.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that all funds for the home's purchase and renovation came from the misappropriated estate funds, the vesting order was a proper exercise of discretion under section 100 of the Courts of Justice Act, and any notional entitlement the appellant had to reimbursement was offset by the financial benefits of living rent-free in the home for a decade.

The appellants appealed an order regarding the beneficiary designation of a life insurance policy.

The appellants had owned the policy for five years but were never named as beneficiaries.

They assigned ownership back to the deceased, who then designated the respondent as the irrevocable beneficiary.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the deceased was entitled to make the designation and that any prior declaration or trust agreements were overtaken by subsequent events.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The deceased's sons brought a dependant's support claim against his estate, arguing that two life insurance policies worth $1,500,000 should be included in the estate under s. 72(1)(f) of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The policies were owned by a corporation in which the deceased and his wife each held a 50% interest.

The motion judge found the deceased had a beneficial interest and deemed him to have owned the policies.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the policies were owned by the corporation, not the deceased, and therefore did not form part of his estate for the purposes of the Act.