Michael Jagtoo

On an estate appeal, the appellants challenged findings that upheld a later will, dismissed their application, and refused costs relief.

The court found legal and palpable-and-overriding errors in the trial-level analysis of suspicious circumstances, knowledge and approval, conflict concerns surrounding the drafting solicitor, and undue influence evidence.

The court held the impugned will invalid, granted related relief dismissing the connected Small Claims Court action, and set aside the costs order.

Applying modern estate-costs principles, the court ordered a blended costs result, including substantial indemnity costs personally against the respondent for part of first-instance costs, with the remaining amounts payable from the estate.

This is a will challenge concerning the estate of Reka Anroop.

The applicants, Bryan Anroop and Amadai Hardayal, challenged the validity of Reka’s Fourth Will dated May 19, 2022, alleging lack of knowledge and approval, lack of capacity, undue influence, forgery, and unconscionable procurement.

The respondents are Reka’s adult children, with only Chandrawattie Naqvi participating in the litigation.

The court found that the Fourth Will was valid, Reka had capacity, was not unduly influenced, and the signature was not a forgery.

The applicants’ claim for reimbursement for renovations was allowed.

The court also addressed a related Small Claims Court action regarding a life insurance payout.

The applicant mother and respondent father both brought motions for temporary custody of their two children and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The mother alleged the father had a severe alcohol abuse problem, supported by bank records showing extensive alcohol purchases and contemporaneous text messages from the father's sister.

The court found the father's alcohol consumption posed a risk to the children and granted the mother primary care, with the father restricted to supervised day access.

The court also granted the mother exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, prioritizing the children's best interests and need for stability.

The applicant, a self-represented former client, brought an application seeking to have the court assess and reduce his former lawyer's account of $147,845.94, or alternatively, require it to be assessed by an Assessment Officer.

The respondent lawyer had already initiated a Solicitor/Client Preliminary Appointment for assessment.

The court dismissed the application, finding no reason to interfere with the usual assessment process under the Solicitors Act and noting that Rule 14.05 did not apply given the material facts in dispute.

Costs of the application were reserved to the Assessment Officer.