Michael Jonathan Bolotenko

The deceased died unexpectedly, leaving a valid 2013 paper will and an unsigned, unwitnessed 2024 draft will that existed only in electronic form on his computer.

The moving party sought a determination of whether the 2024 electronic document could be validated as a will under s. 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act (SLRA).

The court held that the combined effect of s. 21.1(2) of the SLRA and s. 31(1) of the Electronic Commerce Act (ECA) prevents the validation of a testamentary document that exists only in electronic form, as wills are expressly exempted from the ECA's functional equivalency rules.

In the alternative, the court found that the electronic document did not represent a fixed and final expression of the deceased's testamentary intentions, as it was never printed or signed despite the deceased having the opportunity to do so.

The application to validate the electronic will was dismissed.

The applicants sought directions on whether Shannon Durno, the named estate trustee, should be removed or passed over, and whether Aleksandr Bolotenko should be appointed as the succeeding estate trustee.

The estate trustee was unwilling to continue acting.

One respondent opposed the appointment of Bolotenko on the basis of alleged conflict of interest.

The court found that Durno had intermeddled with the estate and could not renounce her position, and therefore removed her.

The court found no disqualifying conflict of interest and appointed Bolotenko as the succeeding estate trustee.

The court considered whether the repeal of sections 15(a) and 16 of the Succession Law Reform Act by Bill 245 should apply retroactively to revive a will revoked by marriage prior to January 1, 2022.

The court held that the presumption against retroactivity was not rebutted, and the deceased's will, revoked by marriage in 2003, was not revived.

The deceased died intestate.

The applicant sought a declaration that title to a property ("Thorah") be restored to her as a joint tenant, or alternatively, that the respondents were unjustly enriched due to her contributions.

The court determined that the property was held as tenants in common, not joint tenants, applying the presumption under the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, as the conveying will did not explicitly state an intention for joint tenancy.

Consequently, the deceased's one-half interest fell into her estate.

The court dismissed the primary claim for joint tenancy restoration.

Regarding the unjust enrichment claim, the court ordered that carrying costs and a joint line of credit be apportioned between the applicant and the deceased's estate based on their respective contributions and usage, without requiring a formal reference.

Each party was ordered to bear their own costs due to the ambiguity in the original will.

The Estate Trustee sought declarations that the deceased was the sole owner of a property, that it vested in the Estate Trustee, and for immediate vacant possession to facilitate its sale for estate administration.

The respondent, a beneficiary occupying the property, sought an adjournment of the application and resisted immediate eviction, having commenced a dependant support application.

The court declared the property vested in the Estate Trustee and authorized its sale.

While denying immediate vacant possession, the court ordered the respondent to provide full access for appraisal and showings, vacate during these visits, and vacate the property entirely seven days before closing.

Costs were awarded to the applicant from the Estate.