Margaret Rintoul

The court considered whether the Morris Guy Jones Family Trust was a sham, whether it was void for lack of certainty of subject-matter, and whether the respondent breached her duties as trustee.

The court found the trust was not a sham, was valid, and that the respondent breached the trust by transferring trust assets to a joint account.

The respondent was removed as trustee and the applicant was appointed in her place.

The respondent was ordered to account, restore trust assets, and disgorge any profits.

The appellants, estate trustees of Albert Curé's estate, appealed a trial judgment that interpreted a cohabitation agreement between Albert and Helen Kilitzoglou.

The trial judge found that Albert intended to care for Helen for the rest of her life and ordered the estate to pay all capital repairs and expenses to the residence after the initial three-year period, and apportioned realty taxes and insurance on a 50/50 basis.

The trial judge also found bad faith on the part of the trustees and awarded punitive damages.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred by allowing his view of the factual matrix to overwhelm the words of the contract.

The dominant theme of the agreement was that each party would remain financially independent with no obligation to support the other.

The court held that Helen was responsible for all ordinary and reasonable costs of maintaining the residence after three years, including realty taxes and insurance, and that the estate was responsible only for the outstanding mortgage.

Estate trustees sought repayment of an equitable interest in a property purchased by the defendants with funds advanced by the deceased, claiming a resulting trust.

The defendants argued the claim was statute-barred and that the funds were resolved by a share distribution.

Both parties sought summary judgment.

The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the action, finding the claim for a resulting trust in real property was statute-barred by the 10-year limitation period under section 4 of the Real Property Limitations Act, with the right to action accruing at the time the trust was created or, at the latest, when the property was sold.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from three consolidated legal actions and subsequent motions following a lengthy trial.

The primary issue was whether the Estate of Albert Curé was entitled to substantial indemnity costs from Helen Kilitzoglou and Life Line Manufacturing Inc. The court found that the Estate's offers to settle did not meet the criteria under Rule 49.10(2) for cost consequences, nor did they justify substantial indemnity under Rule 57.01.

While allegations of civil conspiracy were not found to warrant substantial indemnity due to the high-conflict nature and mutual responsibility, unsubstantiated allegations of fraud regarding an $800,000 dividend and improper receiver appointment were deemed reprehensible.

Considering the divided success, with the Estate being substantially more successful overall, the court awarded the Estate 50% of its partial indemnity costs, plus a $5,000 premium for the fraud allegations.

The plaintiff, Tanya Curé, moved for an order to have her action tried together with an action commenced by the defendant, Helen Kilitzoglou.

The defendant opposed, arguing that her action was ready for trial and consolidation would cause prejudice due to the plaintiff's action not being ready for discovery.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the legal issues in the two actions were distinct, the risk of inconsistent factual findings was not compelling given a prior detailed decision and the potential application of issue estoppel, and the defendant's right to discovery in the plaintiff's action outweighed the advantages of consolidation, especially considering the defendant's action was scheduled to begin shortly.