Marc Whiteley

The applicants brought a motion seeking a finding that the respondents, Hanna Gajek and Katarzyna Krol, failed to comply with two prior court orders requiring disclosure of the assets and liabilities of the late Marek Krol's estate.

The court found that Katarzyna Krol had satisfied her disclosure obligations to the best of her ability, as she had no knowledge or possession of relevant documents.

However, the court found that Hanna Gajek had not fully complied with the orders, particularly regarding documents likely kept in a safe and details of joint bank accounts.

The motion was dismissed against Katarzyna Krol and allowed in part against the Estate of Hanna Gajek, with directions for further disclosure.

The parties were involved in a dispute over the estate of the deceased, who allegedly died intestate.

The applicant sought the appointment of an Estate Trustee Without a Will and an advance from the estate, while the respondents sought the appointment of an Estate Trustee During Litigation and directions regarding estate properties.

The court consolidated the two applications, appointed an Estate Trustee During Litigation to administer the estate pending the resolution of the dispute, deferred the request for an advance, and authorized the payment of outstanding property taxes on estate properties.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike portions of the defendants' Amended Statement of Defence.

The impugned clauses alleged that the plaintiffs had unclean hands because the claim was a subrogated claim by a title insurer based on false or misleading information provided by the plaintiffs.

The court agreed with the plaintiffs that these allegations were unrelated to the main action regarding renovations and a real estate transaction, and improperly broadened the scope of discovery.

The court ordered the impugned portions struck.

The defendant successfully brought a motion to quash the plaintiff's appeal of an interlocutory order and successfully resisted the plaintiff's motion to extend the time to appeal.

The court awarded the defendant full indemnity costs of $5,997.49 for the motion to quash, finding the plaintiff's pursuit of the appeal in the wrong forum was entirely unnecessary despite repeated warnings.

The court also awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs of $1,500.00 for the motion to extend time, noting efficiencies between the two interrelated motions.