Margot L. Pomerleau

In an estate appeal, the court held that the judgment under appeal was, on its face, made under the Succession Law Reform Act.

Because s. 76 grants exclusive appellate jurisdiction to the Divisional Court for appeals under that Act, the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction.

The appeal was dismissed on that basis.

The court also ordered costs payable to the respondent by the estate in an agreed all-inclusive amount.

A shareholder sought audited financial statements from a corporation spanning multiple years, arguing the corporation had failed to comply with its statutory obligations under the Business Corporations Act.

The respondents contended that the shareholder's demand was barred by the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the Divisional Court's decision that the limitation period applies to compliance orders seeking enforcement of statutory obligations that correspond to shareholder rights.

The court rejected the argument that compliance orders are merely enforcement mechanisms without corresponding legal rights, holding instead that statutory obligations to provide audited financial statements create three-term legal relations where shareholders hold enforceable rights against the corporation.

This decision resolves an application for directions regarding the administration and distribution of the estate of Yvonne Chieffallo.

The court confirms Elisa Chieffallo and Patrick Briggs as estate trustees, orders equal distribution of the residue among the named beneficiaries, and determines that certain assets (the Valley Drive property, Courtyard Crescent property, and a BMO account) do not form part of the estate.

The court also addresses the doctrine of renunciation and intermeddling, the presumption of resulting trust, and the allocation of proceeds from the sale of a vehicle.

The court considered Jack Shapiro’s application for dependant support and a declaration of trust over a condominium following the death of his wife, Carol-Sue Shapiro.

The court found that Jack was a dependant under the Succession Law Reform Act and that Carol-Sue had not made adequate provision for his support in her will.

The court ordered that title to the matrimonial condominium be transferred to Jack, in addition to the $250,000 bequest, balancing Jack’s needs and Carol-Sue’s testamentary intentions to leave the majority of her estate to her son, Michael Shapiro.

The court considered an application for interim support and possession by the deceased’s common law spouse, Louise Gabrielle Nadeau, following the death of Joseph Jean Paul Aubut.

The applicant sought to remain in the property rent-free or, alternatively, to receive interim support.

The court found that the applicant was not entitled to interim support, as her need should be assessed only until the hearing, not for the rest of her life, and she had sufficient resources for that period.

The court further held that the applicant must pay occupation rent and utilities, as she had been unjustly enriched by living in the property without payment since the deceased’s death.

The court declined to order arrears and prohibited the limited estate from disposing of assets until the matter’s final determination.

The decision concerns a shareholder dispute following the breakdown of business relations among the founders of Rideau Elevator Services Inc. and its holding company, 12319896 Canada Limited.

The court found that the defendants, Wilcox and Wheeler, unfairly disregarded Cullain’s reasonable expectations and oppressed him by dismissing him as an employee and purporting to remove him as a director.

The court granted Cullain’s motion for summary judgment, ordered the corporate defendants to purchase Cullain’s shares, and awarded damages for wrongful dismissal.

The Corporation of the City of Ottawa moved to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing its action for delay and to reinstate the action.

The motion was opposed by some third parties.

The court applied the test for setting aside a dismissal order for delay, finding that the City provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay, consistently intended to prosecute the action, and acted promptly to address the dismissal.

The court also determined that the opposing parties would not suffer significant prejudice from the reinstatement.

The motion was granted, reinstating the main action and automatically reviving derivative third-party claims.

This case concerns an application for a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee, which was challenged by the deceased's husband and daughter on grounds of undue influence and testamentary fraud.

The objectors alleged that the deceased's son and his wife fraudulently influenced the deceased to disinherit her daughter and significantly reduce her husband's inheritance by instilling false beliefs about the daughter's husband and the husband's financial well-being.

The court found no evidence that the son and his wife perpetrated or encouraged these alleged falsehoods.

The deceased's testamentary changes were determined to be her own decisions, made gradually over time, based on her long-standing concerns about protecting the family's wealth from her son-in-law, and after receiving independent professional advice.

The court dismissed the objections, declared the wills valid, and granted the application for the Certificate of Appointment.

The applicant, Claude Bachand, sought a declaration of his 25% beneficial interest in a jointly owned property, the sale proceeds of which were held in trust.

The property was originally purchased by the applicant and respondent Danielle Leclair, with both holding 50% in trust for respondent Marc Agostini.

The applicant claimed his 25% interest arose from his role as a grantor on the mortgage, while respondent Leclair argued she held beneficial ownership over his interest, relying on principles of purchase money resulting trust.

The court found that the applicant failed to rebut the presumption of a purchase money resulting trust, as he did not contribute financially to the property's acquisition or ongoing expenses.

The court concluded that the applicant held his interest in trust for Danielle Leclair, entitling her to the remaining net proceeds of sale after Marc Agostini's agreed-upon share.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their action against an insurer (Ivari) for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The original action alleged breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence related to an unsuitable financial retirement plan involving life insurance.

The motion judge dismissed the claim, finding no duty owed by the insurer regarding product suitability and refusing leave to amend.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred by treating the Rule 21 motion as a summary judgment, and by concluding there was a general principle that insurers never owe a duty regarding product suitability.

While agreeing the pleadings were deficient in distinguishing duties among defendants, the Court found no reason to deny leave to amend, as the proposed claims were tenable and there was no prejudice.

The appeal was allowed in part, restoring the action against the respondent and granting leave to amend the statement of claim.

The applicant, Steven Lester, sought a certificate of appointment as Estate Trustee based on his deceased father Robert Lester's 2020 will.

The respondents, Robert's other children Glenn and Cathy Lester, objected to the appointment, alleging that their father lacked testamentary capacity and sufficient knowledge/approval of the will's contents.

The court examined the deceased's medical history, the circumstances surrounding the will's execution, and expert opinions on capacity.

The court found no compelling evidence of suspicious circumstances regarding the testator's capacity, knowledge, or understanding, and upheld the validity of the 2020 will and other related estate planning documents.

The application for appointment was granted, and the objections were dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to validate service on a corporate defendant and to dispense with service on two individual defendants in an action for misappropriation of funds.

The court found that service on the corporate defendant was already effective under the Rules of Civil Procedure by mailing the claim to its registered address, making validation unnecessary.

The court declined to dispense with service on the individual defendants, finding the plaintiff had not exhausted all reasonable efforts to locate them, such as making inquiries at the criminal court counter, bringing a disclosure motion, or using a skip tracer.

The court extended the time for service on the individual defendants.

This case concerned the validity of Annie Doris Wotton's 2010 will, challenged by her son's litigation guardian on grounds of lack of testamentary capacity.

The applicant, a beneficiary and alternate estate trustee, sought to validate the will.

The court found suspicious circumstances, shifting the onus to the applicant to prove capacity.

After weighing a retrospective neuropsychological assessment against the contemporaneous solicitor's notes and testimony, the court concluded that the testatrix possessed testamentary capacity at the time of execution.

The 2010 will was declared valid, and the applicant was named Estate Trustee.

The plaintiff, a 15-year employee, sought to return to work following a long-term disability leave.

The employer, relying on an incomplete summary of a Functional Abilities Evaluation provided by the disability insurer, concluded it could not accommodate the plaintiff's physical restrictions and refused his return.

The court found the employer failed to meet its procedural duty to accommodate under the Human Rights Code by not making sufficient inquiries or communicating clearly with the plaintiff.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for lost income for the 10-month period he awaited a position, plus $5,000 in punitive damages for the employer's failure to communicate.

This trial involved two consolidated actions: a construction lien claim by S & L Mechanical for unpaid invoices and a breach of trust claim against Robert Dompierre, the former president of Lexus Mechanical Inc. The court found that S & L's construction lien was not registered in a timely manner and had expired.

The breach of trust claim against Dompierre was also dismissed as it was commenced outside the two-year limitation period, as the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the loss much earlier.

However, the court determined the amounts owing to S & L from Lexus Mechanical Inc. (which was bankrupt but continued by order) and allowed certain set-offs claimed by Lexus for incomplete work by S & L. Ultimately, S & L was awarded a net judgment against Lexus Mechanical Inc.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim and the defendant's counterclaim in a simplified procedure trial, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff argued for no costs due to divided success, while the defendant sought elevated costs based on a Rule 49 offer.

The court found the defendant was the successful party as the counterclaim was not pursued.

However, elevated costs were denied because the Rule 49 offer was silent on the counterclaim and potentially out of time.

Applying the principle of proportionality for simplified procedure cases, the court awarded the defendant costs fixed at $15,000 on a reduced partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff contractor brought an action for damages alleging breach of contract or, alternatively, negligent misrepresentation arising from negotiations to renovate premises for a fitness franchise.

The plaintiff argued that the parties reached a binding agreement through meetings, draft contracts, and text messages indicating work would commence, despite the absence of a signed contract.

The defendant maintained there was never a clear acceptance of the plaintiff’s proposal and that negotiations remained conditional on financing, lease arrangements, and other unresolved terms.

The court held the plaintiff failed to establish a meeting of the minds or acceptance of the offer and found no evidence of misleading representations.

The action and the defendant’s counterclaim were both dismissed.