Mario D. Faieta

Several moving parties sought leave to appeal decisions of Dineen J. and Dow J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal brought by Nantu Kumar Ghosh, Christian Levasseur, and Tinku Ghosh because they were filed past the deadline without any request for an extension of time, and in some cases relied on unsworn materials or failed to explain the basis for leave.

Costs were awarded to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs, noting that the responding party did not seek costs or file a costs outline.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to extend the time to bring a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision, and for leave to appeal and introduce new evidence.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and the request to introduce new evidence.

No costs were awarded as no costs outline was filed.

The defendant sought a stay of an order requiring him to attend a summary judgment motion, pending his motion for leave to appeal that order.

The defendant argued the motion judge erred by allowing the use of a Simplified Procedure form and demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the appeal lacked strength, the defendant would not suffer irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience did not favour a stay.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of an application challenging the validity of Augustus Kenrick Forde’s will.

The court reviews the principles for awarding costs in estate litigation, ultimately ordering the applicant to pay 50% of the respondents’ partial indemnity costs, with the balance to be paid from the estate.

Claims for full indemnity costs and additional costs by the estate trustee are dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding that his 'ethical veganism' was not a creed under the Human Rights Code.

Prior to the decision, the parties had settled the underlying complaints, withdrawing them and agreeing not to refile, though preserving the right to seek judicial review on the preliminary issue.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review on the basis of mootness, finding no live controversy remained between the parties and declining to exercise its discretion to hear the moot case.

This decision concerns an application by Dr. Kelly Diane Riedel regarding the validity and administration of the Dmyant Sangha Family Trust and the Sangha Property Trust.

Dr. Riedel alleges that the trusts are shams, created to defeat her family law entitlements, and seeks various forms of relief including the production of legal records and the conversion of the application to an action.

The court addresses the legal standards for sham trusts, the relevance of disputed facts, and the entitlement to privileged documents.

The application to convert to an action is dismissed, and the court sets out a process for determining threshold questions regarding the validity of the trusts.

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 applicants sought judicial review of an umpire's appraisal award regarding a fire loss at the respondent's property.

The dispute centered on whether an indoor pool could be repaired or required replacement.

The umpire determined repair was not a viable option and awarded replacement cost.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the umpire did not exceed his jurisdiction, as determining the amount of loss includes deciding between repair and replacement.

The court also rejected allegations of bias and procedural fairness, emphasizing the umpire's broad discretion to control the appraisal process.

The appellant was a passenger in a vehicle at a fast-food drive-through when a cup of hot coffee spilled on her, causing severe burns.

The insurer denied her claim for statutory accident benefits on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the SABS.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal upheld the denial, finding that an improperly secured lid was an intervening act that broke the chain of causation.

On appeal, the Divisional Court reversed the Tribunal's decision, holding that an inadvertent spill of hot coffee purchased from a drive-through is a normal incident of the risk created by the use of a vehicle, and the appellant's inability to take evasive action due to being seated in the vehicle was a direct cause of her impairments.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Health Professionals Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) upholding the suspension of his privileges and revocation of his hospital appointment for failing to comply with a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that HPARB reasonably applied the Matangi test to uphold the policy, properly admitted expert evidence on infectious diseases, and correctly restricted its evidentiary review to the information available at the time the hospital made its decision.

The court found no procedural unfairness or bias that would vitiate the decision.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Rady J dated October 1, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Campbell J dated October 7, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court reviewed the written materials and dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The moving party was ordered to pay costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $4,823.85, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

This case involves a challenge to the validity of a holograph will, which disinherited the applicant, Lara Korba, in favour of her brother, the respondent Ian Farooque, who was also named estate trustee.

Lara alleged lack of testamentary capacity, knowledge/approval, and undue influence.

The application sought various remedies, including transferring property back to the estate, an inventory, restraint on asset disposition, appointment of an Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL), and extensive production of financial, medical, and testamentary records.

Ian brought a cross-motion to strike portions of Lara's supplementary affidavit.

The court addressed several agreed-upon matters and ruled on contested issues, partially granting production of counselling records, denying further general medical and financial records, and partially striking the applicant's affidavit by removing irrelevant and prejudicial allegations while retaining those relevant to the undue influence claim.

The applicant brought a motion for directions in an estate dispute, seeking the production of the deceased's medical, solicitor, and police records, as well as leave to examine the deceased's solicitors.

The applicant challenged a 2022 codicil that appointed the respondent as sole estate trustee, alleging lack of capacity and undue influence.

The court dismissed the request for additional medical records, finding no evidence to support a fishing expedition.

The court partially granted the request for solicitor records, ordering production of the 2019 estate planning file but protecting files related to a 2006 fraud action and a 2009 will.

The court also ordered the production of unredacted police records regarding domestic disputes at the deceased's home.

The moving party, who became the sole owner of a condominium by right of survivorship following her former partner's death, brought a motion for vacant possession and occupation rent against the deceased's 85-year-old mother.

The mother argued she had a verbal agreement with the deceased to live in the condo rent-free for life.

The court found the mother's hearsay evidence regarding the deceased's promise to be unreliable and unenforceable for lack of consideration.

The court granted the motion, ordering the mother to deliver vacant possession and pay occupation rent of $2,200 per month from the date the moving party ceased financially supporting her occupation.

The applicant challenged the validity of her late father's will, which excluded her as a beneficiary, alleging lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, suspicious circumstances, and lack of knowledge and approval.

The testator had been diagnosed with dementia and mild cognitive impairment prior to executing the will.

The court found that suspicious circumstances existed, shifting the burden to the propounder of the will.

However, the court concluded that the testator had testamentary capacity, knew and approved of the will's contents, and was not subjected to undue influence, noting he provided clear and rational reasons to his drafting lawyer for excluding the applicant.

The application was dismissed and the will was declared valid.

The applicant, Linda Bridgewater, sought an order interpreting the residuary clause of Ronald Douglas Penrose's will, which bequeathed the balance of his estate to a non-existent entity, 'Guide Dogs of Canada.' The court applied the 'armchair rule' to determine the testator's subjective intention, considering extrinsic evidence such as the testator's prior donations to and a brochure from the Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB).

The court found that the testator intended the bequest to go to the CNIB, dismissing alternative interpretations proposed by other guide dog charities.

The applicants, Ada De Novellis and Michael Ceci, brought a motion within a guardianship application concerning their 92-year-old mother, Dolorosa Ceci, who suffers from dementia.

They sought an accounting of proceeds from a charge registered by the respondent, Dario Ceci, against Dolorosa's property, an order for Dario to reimburse Dolorosa for legal fees paid from her assets, and an interim injunction restraining Dario from dealing with Dolorosa's assets.

The court dismissed the motion for an accounting, finding Dario had provided sufficient explanation.

It also dismissed the request for reimbursement of legal fees, instead ordering a charge on Dario's home as security.

Finally, the court dismissed the injunction request, finding no irreparable harm as Dolorosa had sufficient security.