Melanie Yach

The appellants challenged the validity of their deceased father's 2021 will and an inter vivos property transfer, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by the respondents.

The application judge dismissed their motion for directions, finding they failed to meet the minimal evidentiary threshold under Rule 75.06.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the application judge's assessment of the evidence regarding capacity or undue influence, nor in his treatment of the evidence or sufficiency of reasons for dismissing the challenge to the property transfer.

The plaintiff, the deceased's spouse of 20 years, brought a dependant's support claim under Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The deceased's Will left 40% of the residue of his estate to the plaintiff and 60% to three of his adult children.

The plaintiff argued this provision was inadequate to maintain her accustomed lifestyle and sought the entirety of the estate.

The court found that the deceased did not make adequate provision for the plaintiff's proper support.

After analyzing expert evidence on the plaintiff's lifestyle expenses and life expectancy, the court ordered a lump sum payment of $2,556,871.00 (or 40% of the final residue, whichever is greater) to provide for her housing and future needs, while preserving the deceased's testamentary intention to benefit his children.

The applicant challenged her mother's 2015 will, alleging lack of knowledge and approval, lack of testamentary capacity, and suspicious circumstances.

The 2015 will divided the estate equally among the three children, whereas a previous 2013 will had left the majority of the estate to the applicant.

The court found no suspicious circumstances, preferring the evidence of the drafting solicitor and the deceased's family doctor over the retrospective analysis of the applicant's expert geriatric psychiatrist.

The court concluded the deceased had the necessary testamentary capacity and dismissed the application.

The applicant brought a motion to appoint replacement estate trustees for the estate of her late husband, following the resignation of the previous trustees amidst a highly fractious family dispute.

The applicant sought the appointment of three family members, while the responding parties sought the appointment of a neutral third party, either Scotiatrust or a senior lawyer.

The court found that the extreme animosity between the two family camps necessitated a neutral institutional trustee to prevent further litigation and ensure the estate's administration.

Scotiatrust was appointed as the Estate Trustee During Litigation.

The moving party defendants brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the plaintiff's claims for oppression and breach of fiduciary duty on the basis that they were statute-barred.

The plaintiff argued that the claims were not statute-barred and that a Rule 21 motion was inappropriate for determining limitation issues.

The court found that the plaintiff discovered the factual foundation for its claims in the fall of 2017 during related estate litigation, but did not commence the action until December 2019, beyond the two-year limitation period.

The court held that this was a rare case where discoverability was not in issue, making a Rule 21 motion appropriate.

The motion was granted and the statement of claim was struck.

In an ongoing estate dispute between a widow and her children, the applicant widow brought a motion to add two corporate parties, admit a late affidavit regarding her health, substitute written interrogatories for oral cross-examination, and determine the scope of cross-examination.

The court added the corporate parties, finding one to be a necessary party.

The court admitted the late affidavit but excluded the attached medical reports as inadmissible hearsay.

The court declined to dispense with oral cross-examination, finding insufficient evidence of serious harm, but ordered specific accommodations for the 93-year-old applicant.

Finally, the court limited the scope of cross-examination to the three issues previously deemed urgent to conserve judicial resources.

The Estate Trustee applied to rectify a drafting error in the deceased's Secondary Will.

The will mistakenly directed the redemption of 150 Class D shares to fund a $2 million bequest, but the deceased owned Class E shares, and 300 shares were required to generate the necessary after-tax proceeds.

The drafting solicitor admitted the error.

The deceased's widow opposed the rectification, arguing it should await the trial of her separate negligence claim against the solicitor.

The court applied the Robinson test, found the solicitor misunderstood or failed to carry out the testator's instructions, and granted the rectification to reflect the deceased's true intentions.

Following earlier rulings on a derivative leave motion in estate litigation, the court addressed outstanding procedural directions and the issue of costs for five related motions.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $144,000 for work connected primarily to the derivative issues.

Applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the proportionality principles discussed in Boucher v. Public Accountants, the court held that the requested amount far exceeded the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful parties for a one‑day motion.

Substantial indemnity costs were denied.

The court fixed costs payable by the defendants jointly and severally at $55,000 inclusive of taxes and interest.