Mary Fraser

This motion concerned the application of the six-month limitation period under the Succession Law Reform Act for a dependant's support claim.

The respondent, executor of the deceased's estate, sought a ruling that the application was statute-barred, arguing the limitation period began when the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (OPGT) became the applicant's statutory guardian of property.

The applicant, through the OPGT, contended that the limitation period did not run until the OPGT formally acted as litigation guardian after a thorough investigation.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the limitation period did not run while the applicant was incapable and not represented by a litigation guardian, and that the OPGT's appointment as guardian of property did not automatically make it a litigation guardian for the purpose of commencing the limitation period.

The appellants, adult independent children of the deceased, appealed a trial decision dismissing their application to set aside their father's will.

The deceased left his entire estate to his daughter-in-law.

The appellants argued the deceased had a moral obligation to provide for them.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that Ontario law does not recognize a moral obligation to provide for independent adult children that can displace a competent testator's autonomous distribution of property.

The applicant father brought an interim motion seeking sole custody of the parties’ children and permission to relocate them to Belleville.

The respondent mother opposed the motion and disputed allegations regarding her mental health and parenting capacity.

The court reviewed jurisprudence governing interim mobility applications, including the reluctance to disrupt the status quo absent pressing reasons or a strong likelihood of success at trial.

Finding significant conflicting evidence regarding the mother’s alleged mental health issues and the children’s expressed preferences, the court held that these matters required viva voce evidence and full evidentiary assessment at trial.

As there were no pressing circumstances justifying immediate relocation or custody change, the motion was dismissed.