3 total
Motion to enforce settlement dismissed as parties had not reached agreement on all essential terms.
The moving party sought to enforce an unsigned settlement agreement arising from a dispute over the validity of competing wills.
The moving party argued that an agreement on the essential terms had been reached through correspondence between counsel.
The responding parties opposed the motion, arguing that counteroffers were still being made and no final agreement was reached.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that there was no meeting of the minds on all essential terms and that the responding parties never agreed to the terms in the draft minutes of settlement.
Unfounded attacks in estate litigation attracted elevated costs.
In this estate costs endorsement following dismissal of a motion to nullify a settlement and remove the estate trustee during litigation, the court fixed and apportioned costs among family participants and the trustee.
The court held that unfounded allegations of fraud, dishonesty, incompetence, and improper conduct justified elevated costs against the moving party, and partly against a supporting beneficiary, payable from their respective shares of the estate rather than from estate assets generally.
The trustee received full indemnity costs and another responding party received substantial indemnity costs after the court found the motion lacked evidentiary foundation and unnecessarily prolonged the administration of the estate.
Separate partial indemnity adjournment costs were awarded in favour of the supporting beneficiary and the self-represented moving party against the trustee and another responding party personally for unreasonably refusing a consent adjournment.
Binding settlement upheld and trustee removal request rejected.
In an estate administration dispute, the moving party sought to nullify Minutes of Settlement, compel compliance with an earlier directions order, remove the estate trustee during litigation, and appoint a replacement trustee.
The court held the Minutes of Settlement were a binding contract resolving the will challenge, estate administration disputes, and related civil claims, and found no legal basis to set them aside.
Applying the trustee removal principles under the Trustee Act and relevant case law, the court concluded there was no clear necessity to remove the estate trustee during litigation, no evidence that the estate or beneficiaries were endangered, and no proof of actual partiality or maladministration.
The motion was dismissed in its entirety, with costs to be addressed by further written submissions if not agreed.
