3 total
Executors awarded compensation for physical labour cleaning hoarder house despite Will prohibiting executor compensation.
The applicant challenged the administration of his mother's estate by his sisters, the respondent executors.
The deceased was a hoarder, and the executors spent significant time cleaning and repairing her house to prepare it for sale.
Although the Will prohibited executor compensation, the court awarded the respondents $29,250 for their physical labour, finding it fell outside normal executor duties and significantly benefited the estate.
The court also approved the respondents' out-of-pocket expenses and found their method of distributing personal effects was fair.
Successful defendants awarded $20,000 in costs after beating three reasonable offers to settle.
Following a trial where the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed and the defendants' counterclaim was partially allowed, the defendants sought costs of $39,364.74.
The defendants had made three reasonable offers to settle, all of which they beat at trial.
The court awarded the defendants costs fixed at $20,000, representing approximately 50% of full recovery, noting that the defendants were the more successful and reasonable party.
Retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support ordered after separation.
The applicant brought a motion for retroactive and ongoing child support and spousal support following separation after a lengthy marriage with two children.
The court reviewed principles of spousal support entitlement, including compensatory and non‑compensatory bases, and considered whether income should be imputed to the applicant.
The court found the applicant was not intentionally underemployed and declined to impute additional income to her.
Using the respondent’s income of $58,023.54, the court ordered retroactive child support for the period following separation, ongoing guideline child support, and retroactive and ongoing spousal support calculated at the mid‑range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.
Payment of retroactive support was ordered from the respondent’s share of the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home.