Matthew Rendely

The applicant sought an order under s. 9 of the Estates Act to compel the deceased's lawyer to produce her file to determine if an unexecuted draft will could be validated under s. 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The court considered whether this constituted an impermissible fishing expedition or breached solicitor-client privilege.

Given that the estate trustee did not oppose the relief and the primary beneficiary under the prior will consented, the court ordered the lawyer to produce the file relating to the deceased's 2022 estate planning.

The Public Guardian and Trustee, acting as litigation guardian for an incapable person, brought a summary judgment motion against the incapable person's former attorney for property.

The attorney had transferred the incapable person's unencumbered residential property to himself in trust for his daughter for no consideration, subsequently sold it, and misappropriated funds from her bank accounts.

The court found the attorney breached his fiduciary duties and ordered him to pay damages of $2,550,000 for the property sale and $150,015 for the misappropriated funds, plus full indemnity costs.

The respondents brought a motion to remove the applicant's counsel, alleging a conflict of interest because counsel acted for the applicant personally, as Estate Trustee, and for the Estate, and arguing counsel might become witnesses.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that counsel acts for the Estate Trustee, not the Estate, and there was no evidence of a conflict or that counsel would need to testify.

The court also ordered the respondents to provide outstanding disclosure, pay $15,000 in costs thrown away for a previously adjourned hearing, and directed that any proceeds from the sale of a disputed condominium be paid into court.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his cross-motion regarding the administration of his late father's estate.

He sought an extension of time to file an election under s. 6(1) of the Family Law Act on behalf of his incapable mother, arguing his father may have made a subsequent will disinheriting her.

The application judge found no evidence of a subsequent will and that an election was not in the mother's best interests.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's factual findings or costs award.

Following a trial regarding the validity of codicils to a will, the court determined the allocation and quantum of costs.

The Objectors, who unsuccessfully challenged the codicils on grounds of testamentary capacity and undue influence, argued that costs should be paid out of the estate.

The court applied a blended costs approach, ordering the Objectors to pay the successful parties' costs incurred after a second mediation, at which point the Objectors should have reassessed their position.

The court also significantly reduced the costs claimed by some of the successful parties due to duplication of effort and excessive docketing.

The applicant and respondent, siblings and joint attorneys for property for their incapable mother, disputed the administration of their late father's estate.

The applicant sought to appoint CIBC Trust as Estate Trustee to administer the estate under a 1974 Will, which left the residue to their mother.

The respondent opposed, arguing their father had made a later will disinheriting their mother, and sought an order compelling an election under the Family Law Act to protect her interests.

The court found no evidence of a later will despite extensive searches, dismissed the respondent's motion, appointed CIBC Trust as Estate Trustee, and declared the 1974 Will valid.

Costs were awarded on a full indemnity basis, capped at $125,000, payable by the respondent, the estate, and the mother.

The applicants, estate trustees of the late Ellen Kates, sought to propound codicils executed in August 2011.

The objectors challenged the codicils on the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence, citing the testator's diagnosis of moderate Alzheimer's disease.

The court found that despite the cognitive impairment, the testator understood the nature and effect of the codicils, the extent of her property, and the claims of those excluded.

The court also found no evidence of coercion or fraud amounting to undue influence.

The codicils were admitted to probate.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for reconsideration of a Rule 49 application, the respondent law firm sought costs.

The applicant argued that as a self-represented law firm, the respondent was not entitled to costs without proving lost opportunity costs.

The court agreed there was no evidence of lost opportunity costs, precluding a partial indemnity award.

However, exercising its general discretion under section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, the court awarded nominal costs of $750 to the respondent to discourage inappropriate litigation behavior.

The applicant sought reconsideration of an order dismissing her Rule 49 motion to enforce a settlement agreement regarding a solicitor-client fee dispute.

The court dismissed the reconsideration motion, finding no reason in the interests of justice to vary the previous decision.

The court also held that the Rule 49 motion failed on its merits because the applicant had not complied with the settlement terms, there was no meeting of the minds on the essential term of a release, and the court would exercise its discretion not to enforce the settlement.

Furthermore, the applicant was precluded from bringing the motion because she had elected to proceed with the assessment hearing rather than enforcing the settlement.