Mario D. Faieta

The defendant Mireille Jehn brought a motion seeking directions to restrain the plaintiffs from registering a caution or certificate of pending litigation (CPL) and for leave to provide 22 days' notice for refinancing instead of 30 days.

The plaintiffs cross-moved to restrain further encumbrance/refinancing and to place a CPL on the properties.

The court permitted the refinancing to proceed but restrained Mireille Jehn from drawing down funds beyond refinancing costs and $80,000 for carrying costs.

Leave was granted for the immediate 22-day notice, but future notice was extended to 60 days.

The court denied the request for a caution or CPL, finding the plaintiffs' resulting trust claim enured to the Estate, not them personally, thus they lacked a direct "interest in land."

The applicant mother was found in contempt for denying court-ordered parenting time to the respondent father for 3.5 months.

This endorsement concerns the sentencing hearing.

The court dismissed the mother's claim that she had purged her contempt, finding no mitigating factors and several aggravating factors, including a pattern of non-compliance.

The court ordered the mother to pay a suspended fine of $15,000 to the Minister of Finance, conditional on future compliance with parenting orders, and to pay the father $15,755.03 in costs on a full recovery basis due to her bad faith conduct and prior non-compliance with costs orders.

The applicant, Roman Kulyk, as Estate Trustee of Nicholas Kulyk, sought various orders to manage and sell two estate properties where the respondents (Andrew Kulyk, Jonathan Kulyk, and Elyse Kulyk) were residing or using without authorization.

The respondents, beneficiaries of a trust share, had ignored the proceedings.

The court confirmed that an executor's authority derives from the will, not probate, and granted orders for the respondents and unauthorized tenants to vacate both properties, granting leave for writs of possession.

It also ordered the respondents to provide leases, account for rents received, and directed tenants to pay rent to the applicant.

The court dismissed requests for vesting orders, possession orders, and orders for cooperation, deeming them unnecessary or difficult to enforce.

Costs of $20,000 were awarded to the applicant against the respondents, to be taken from their share of the estate.

The applicant, Jennifer Lynn James, brought a motion seeking to add Gideon Amofa as a respondent, validate service on him, and enforce a Florida temporary injunction.

The Florida injunction prohibited Gideon Amofa from contacting Carol Fern James, coming near her home or car, and froze assets held at TD Wealth in Toronto, even if jointly titled.

The court dismissed all three requests.

It found that service on Gideon Amofa was not properly effected under the Hague Service Convention, that Gideon was not a necessary party to the existing guardianship application concerning Carol's capacity, and that the Florida temporary injunction was not final or sufficiently clear for enforcement in Ontario.

The court also raised public policy concerns regarding the enforcement of an order that restricts a presumed capable person's contact with her husband and freezes her assets, especially when the relief granted exceeds what is available under Ontario law without a finding of incapacity.

The respondent husband brought a motion to disqualify the applicant wife's counsel (Tanya Road) and her sister's counsel (Rahul Shastri) in family law and related civil proceedings.

The motion was based on the fact that the respondent's former legal assistant, Olivia Valente, had subsequently been employed by Ms. Road.

The court applied a flexible, case-specific approach to the MacDonald Estate test for non-legal staff, finding that Ms. Valente's role at the former firm was purely administrative and that effective ethical screens were implemented at Ms. Road's firm.

The court concluded that a reasonably informed person would be satisfied that no confidential information would be used to the prejudice of the respondent and dismissed the motion.

Maria Sophia Furtado, a tenant and caregiver to the deceased Endel Lindaja, sought an ownership interest in his condominium based on an alleged promise, unjust enrichment, or dependant support under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The Estate Trustee, Tonu Peep Tosine, sought a declaration of ownership, an order for Furtado to vacate, and occupation rent.

The court dismissed Furtado's claims for dependant support and unjust enrichment, finding she was not a "dependant" and there was a juristic reason for any enrichment (free room and board for services).

The court declared the condominium wholly owned by the Estate.

However, the court also dismissed the Estate Trustee's claims for Furtado to vacate and pay occupation rent, finding she remained a tenant and any termination or rent claim must comply with the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court provided clarification regarding the operative priorities of payments from the respondent's frozen Canaccord accounts, as requested by Justice Diamond.

The endorsement clarified that a January 5, 2024 order, which required the liquidation of assets up to $7,975,007.60 to be paid to the applicant's barristers in trust, takes precedence.

Consequently, no further funds are to be paid out of these specific Canaccord accounts for the children's tuition or any other reason under earlier orders (October 5, 2021, or November 12, 2021) until the specified amount has been fully paid to the barristers.

The court also dismissed the respondent's procedural objections regarding the motion.

The applicant, Rowland Hill, acting as Estate Trustee for the Estate of Samuel Jefferson Hill, sought his own removal due to severe health issues caused by the protracted administration and requested directions concerning his informal accounting.

The respondent, Bryan Jefferson Hill, opposed the removal without a formal passing of accounts and the appointment of a replacement trustee.

The court acknowledged the applicant's health concerns and the difficulties in administering the complex estate with limited funds.

While not immediately ordering a formal passing of accounts, the court adjourned the application, intending to permit the applicant's resignation effective September 30, 2024, and directed the applicant to provide an informal accounting within 90 days.

The court also instructed the parties and beneficiaries to actively seek a replacement trustee and explore practical solutions like a deed of arrangement.

This application sought the court's opinion and direction on the interpretation of a deceased's handwritten will.

The primary issues were whether a residual gift to the testator's sons was conditional on the testator and his wife dying during a specific trip, and the effect of a subsequent clause regarding the distribution of cash assets and memorabilia.

The court applied the "armchair rule" to ascertain the testator's subjective intention, concluding that the residual gift was not conditional and that the subsequent clause was void for repugnancy as the estate had already been fully disposed of.

The applicant, Lin Zhang, brought a motion for leave to amend her Application in an estate matter.

The proposed amendments included seeking the removal of Shu De Rong as Estate Trustee and her own appointment, an election for equalization of net family property under the Family Law Act (FLA), dependent's relief under the Succession Law Reform Act (SLRA), and an accounting, preservation, and restitution related to foreign estate assets.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the requests for executor removal and foreign asset claims suffered from presumed prejudice due to lengthy delays and lacked prima facie merit or sufficient evidentiary basis.

The court also dismissed the application to extend the FLA limitation period, noting no apparent grounds for relief or good faith delay, and found the dependent's relief amendment unnecessary as it was already an alternative claim.

The applicant, a minor represented by the Children's Lawyer, brought a motion to compel the respondent, the deceased's widow and estate trustee, to pass her accounts.

The respondent had been appointed estate trustee without a will in February 2022 but had failed to provide any information or accounting despite multiple requests from the Children's Lawyer since December 2022.

The estate was valued at over $650,000, with the minor's interest being approximately $225,000.

The court found that the estate trustee had a duty to account and that the applicant, as a financially interested person, was entitled to compel the accounts under the Estates Act and Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court granted the motion, ordering the respondent to file accounts and an application to pass accounts within 45 days, provide her email address, and pay the Children's Lawyer's fixed costs of $5,000 personally.

A case conference was also scheduled.

The applicant sought an order to validate the Last Will and Testament of the deceased, which was missing one witness signature, pursuant to section 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The court applied the two-part test under section 21.1, finding the document authentic and reflective of the deceased's fixed and final testamentary intentions.

The application was granted, validating the will and appointing the applicant as Estate Trustee.

This motion addressed three issues: the addition of parties to a trust dispute, the appropriate method of service for parties residing in Israel under the Hague Service Convention, and costs.

The court ordered the addition of the issue of Gershon Kaplan and Adina Gordon as party defendants, including the Children's Lawyer for minor/unascertained beneficiaries, finding their presence necessary for effective adjudication.

Regarding service abroad, the court held that Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention authorizes service of an originating process by postal channels, rejecting the argument that "send" does not include "serve" and clarifying that prior case law suggesting otherwise (e.g., Wilson v. Servier Canada Inc.) is no longer good law.

The court directed service on the added parties in Israel by a method authorized by Article 10, including registered mail.

No costs were awarded due to the plaintiff's non-opposition on the first issue and the novelty of the second issue.

The Applicant sought orders for a significant distribution from the net proceeds of sale of a jointly held property and substantial interim legal fees and disbursements.

The Respondent opposed, proposing a smaller, equal distribution of proceeds and challenging the quantum of interim fees.

The court ordered an equal distribution of $250,000 to each party from the sale proceeds and significantly reduced the Applicant's requested interim fees, ordering the Respondent to pay $725,000 for the Applicant's future litigation expenses.

The court found the Applicant's claims for spousal support and equalization had merit, but emphasized the need for reasonableness in fee requests and the complexity of financial disclosure.

This endorsement addresses cross-motions for interim child and spousal support and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court imputed the applicant father's income at $396,634 for support purposes, rejecting his request for a three-year average.

Interim child support was ordered on a set-off basis due to shared parenting, and interim spousal support was set to achieve a 50/50 split of net disposable income, applying an SSAG exception for compelling financial circumstances.

The respondent mother's request for security for support via life insurance was dismissed due to lack of evidence.

The court ordered the immediate sale of the matrimonial home, finding no basis for the respondent's request for exclusive possession, but stipulated that the sale completion should not occur before July 1, 2024.

The applicant sought to suspend the appointment of the primary respondent as Estate Trustee and appoint an Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL), alleging conflicts of interest and mismanagement regarding the sale of an estate-owned property.

The primary respondent, supported by the co-respondent, opposed the application, arguing her actions were in the best interest of the estate and that the applicant was in conflict.

The court dismissed the application for an ETDL, finding no clear evidence to warrant the removal of the Estate Trustee, and instead ordered the Estate Trustee to proceed with listing the property for sale on the open market and to commence an application to pass her accounts.

The respondent father brought a motion for contempt against the applicant mother for withholding parenting time of their child, J.S., contrary to existing court orders.

The court found that the applicant mother intentionally withheld the child from the respondent father's parenting time since August 2, 2023, and that her actions were not in the child's best interests but rather aimed at harming the respondent's relationship with the child.

The court established contempt beyond a reasonable doubt and adjourned the matter for a penalty hearing.

The applicant mother sought an advance on equalization of $10,505,000 to address significant income tax liabilities related to corporate assets managed by the respondent father in her name.

The respondent father brought a cross-motion to set aside or vary existing preservation orders, arguing financial transparency and hardship.

The court granted the applicant an advance on equalization of $7,975,007.60, finding a clear need for the funds to discharge tax liabilities created by the respondent and that the advance would not exceed the likely final equalization payment.

The court dismissed the respondent's cross-motion, finding his financial disclosure lacked transparency and his claims of hardship were unsubstantiated.

The Applicant brought a motion seeking temporary spousal and child support, retroactive support, interim disbursements, and insurance orders.

The Respondent sought lower spousal support and dismissal of the Applicant's other claims.

The court imputed an annual income of $30,000 to the Applicant and, for support purposes, excluded the Respondent's RRSP withdrawals from his income.

The court determined interim spousal and child support amounts, found two of the three adult children remained children of the marriage for support purposes, and ordered equal contribution to section 7 expenses after RESP exhaustion.

The Applicant's claims for retroactive support, interim disbursements, and insurance were dismissed.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for the return of his three children to Ontario after the respondent mother wrongfully removed them to Pakistan in breach of existing court orders.

The court found jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act (CLRA) despite the children and mother being outside Ontario and the Hague Convention not being in effect between Canada and Pakistan.

The court ordered the immediate return of the children to the father's care, granted him sole interim decision-making, and directed Ontario police to assist upon their return.

Other relief, including contempt and freezing accounts, was denied or deferred.