M. Jasmine Sweatman

The applicant sought a declaration that powers of attorney for personal care and property, executed by the respondent Ann McDonald in 2018, were valid and compliant with the Substitute Decisions Act.

The powers of attorney did not meet formal requirements because Ann did not sign them in the presence of witnesses; rather, witnesses signed five days later.

The court applied the curative provisions of the SDA, finding that Ann's acknowledgment of her signature and modification of the date to align with the witnesses' signatures demonstrated her true intentions and ratification of the documents.

The court declared both powers of attorney valid and effective, appointing the applicant as sole attorney for both personal care and property.

The court interprets the Will of Yaacov Glickman, deceased, and determines that the gift of the residue of his estate to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem is not void for uncertainty or any other reason.

The court finds that the Will provides for an outright gift to the University, not a formal trust or foundation, and that the "assumptions" in the Will are precatory rather than binding conditions.

The Applicant's concerns about ambiguity are addressed, and the court orders that the residue of the estate be distributed to the Hebrew University in accordance with the Will's guidelines.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal where the appellant, Linda Palichuk, was entirely unsuccessful on all issues, including an application for leave to appeal a Superior Court costs order.

The appellant had persisted in seeking a guardianship order for Nina Palichuk despite an expert report confirming Nina's capacity.

The respondents were entirely successful.

The court, considering Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, ordered costs payable to each respondent.

Linda Palichuk appealed a Superior Court decision that found her mother, Nina, capable of managing her affairs and executing various instruments (will, powers of attorney, property transfer), refused a guardianship order, and dismissed Linda's undue influence claim as hypothetical.

The appeal also challenged an order removing Linda from Nina's bank account and a costs award against Linda.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding of capacity, affirming that undue influence claims regarding a living, capable person's executory instruments are premature and hypothetical, and upholding the costs award.

The appellant, a former spouse, appealed the dismissal of her unissued claims against an estate and a costs order.

The appeal addressed whether an alleged dependant has an unlimited right to pursue claims despite procedural misconduct and delay amounting to an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal found the appellant's conduct vexatious, including re-litigating previously determined matters, failing to comply with court orders, and causing extensive delay in estate administration.

The court upheld the motion judge's decision, confirming that the appellant's claims were moot, dismissed, or procedurally untenable, and that her conduct justified their dismissal as an abuse of process.

The 93-year-old applicant is pursuing financial claims against his deceased wife's estate.

The court expressed serious concerns regarding the lack of priority and cumulative delays in the proceedings, including the applicant's counsel unilaterally scheduling a settlement conference before the file was ready, and the respondent estate commencing a separate action in another branch of the court.

The matter was adjourned to be spoken to, with the court directing counsel to outline practical steps to expedite the resolution of the case.

The court heard two motions for directions regarding the estate of the late musician Peter Appleyard.

The deceased's former spouse, a self-represented litigant, attempted to advance claims for dependant support within the context of an application to pass accounts and remove the estate trustee.

The court dismissed her claims without prejudice, ruling that a claim for dependant support must be brought by way of a proper application under section 58 of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The court set a 90-day deadline for her to issue the proper application.

The applicant challenged his mother's will, alleging undue influence and lack of capacity, but later abandoned the challenge.

The respondent, the estate trustee and primary beneficiary, moved for substantial indemnity costs against the applicant personally.

The applicant cross-moved for costs from the estate.

The court found no suspicious circumstances warranting the challenge, deemed the applicant's conduct vexatious and improperly motivated, including harassment outside the courtroom.

The respondent's motion for substantial indemnity costs was granted, and the applicant's motion for costs from the estate was dismissed.

The appellant appealed from two orders arising from estate proceedings following her former spouse's death.

The appellant sought to advance claims against the estate for arrears in spousal support, ongoing spousal support, return of property, and unjust enrichment.

The lower court had imposed a requirement that the appellant obtain leave of the court before advancing any claims, based on a prior order made in bankruptcy proceedings.

The Court of Appeal found that the lower court erred in extending the reach of the bankruptcy order beyond the bankruptcy proceedings and in imposing a vexatious litigant requirement without a formal declaration.

The court allowed the appeal in part, set aside the March 15, 2017 order, and directed the estate trustee to bring a motion for directions to establish a timetable for administration of the estate and determination of the appellant's claims.

The applicant sought to enforce a settlement agreement reached in an estate dispute.

The settlement was conditional on the applicant's brother not opposing the settlement or the deceased's 2012 Will.

The brother subsequently commenced an application challenging the 2012 Will, which was later deemed abandoned.

The court found that the brother's challenge constituted opposition to the settlement, meaning the condition precedent was not met.

The court dismissed the application to enforce the settlement, holding that it became unenforceable once opposed, regardless of the later abandonment of the brother's application.

A non-party brought a motion seeking compensation for property management services provided to a property owned by the deceased and the respondents.

The Estate objected on the preliminary grounds that the non-party lacked standing because he had not commenced an originating process, and that the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 and the Trustee Act.

The court dismissed the preliminary objections, finding that previous court orders had established a procedure for the claim, conferring standing and effectively initiating the proceeding within the limitation periods.

The court also found that the deceased's prior refusal to pay was equivocal, meaning the limitation period had not expired.

The plaintiff was almost entirely successful on a motion to compel answers to nearly 90 undertakings and refusals in an estate litigation matter.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on two offers to settle.

The defendant argued the motion was unnecessary and that costs should be left to the trial judge.

The court found the motion was straightforward but important, and that the plaintiff's claimed costs were reasonable.

The court fixed the plaintiff's costs at $6,600 for fees plus $343.51 for disbursements, plus HST.

Following the dismissal of the defendant's motion to strike portions of the statement of claim, the court received written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on the defendant's delay in bringing the motion and offers to settle.

The defendant argued costs should be left to the trial judge.

The court rejected the defendant's arguments, considered the factors under Rule 57 and the delay under Rule 21.02, and fixed costs payable to the plaintiff at $9,000 inclusive.

Following two interim motions in an estate dispute, the court considered written submissions on costs.

Given the complex legal issues and contradictory affidavits, the court agreed with the estate trustee's counsel and reserved the issue of costs to the trial judge, who will be in a better position to finally determine the issues and any entitlement to costs.

Following two interim motions in an estate dispute, the court considered written submissions on costs.

Given the complex legal issues and contradictory affidavits, the court agreed with the estate trustee's counsel and reserved the issue of costs to the trial judge, who will be in a better position to finally determine the issues and any entitlement to costs.

The deceased's widow and the estate trustee brought competing motions regarding the administration of the estate.

The widow sought dependant's relief, interim support, preservation of section 72 funds received by the deceased's parents, and an order for the estate trustee to pass accounts.

The estate trustee sought directions to sell estate properties, including the matrimonial home, and to have the widow vacate the premises.

The court ordered an expedited trial of all issues, directed the estate trustee to pass her accounts, allowed the widow to remain in the matrimonial home and collect rent pending trial, permitted the estate trustee to sell other estate properties, and ordered $60,000 of the section 72 funds to be held in trust pending the trial.

The deceased's widow and the estate trustee brought competing motions regarding the administration of the estate.

The widow sought dependant's relief, interim support, preservation of section 72 funds received by the deceased's parents, and an order for the estate trustee to pass accounts.

The estate trustee sought directions to sell estate properties, including the matrimonial home, and to have the widow vacate the premises.

The court ordered an expedited trial of all issues, directed the estate trustee to pass her accounts, allowed the widow to remain in the matrimonial home and collect rent pending trial, permitted the estate trustee to sell other estate properties, and ordered $60,000 of the section 72 funds to be held in trust pending the trial.