M. Rintoul

The plaintiffs, who are creditors of the deceased, brought a motion to appoint an independent litigation administrator for the estate, alleging a conflict of interest among the beneficiaries.

The defendant beneficiaries opposed the motion and brought a countermotion to appoint one of the next of kin as estate trustee.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion, finding that creditors do not have the right to dictate who represents the estate in litigation they initiated, and granted the countermotion to appoint the next of kin as estate trustee.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment and application relating to possession of estate property, the estate trustee sought costs against the opposing beneficiaries.

The court considered the principles governing costs in estate litigation and the factors under Rule 57.01(1), including the respondents’ failure to provide sufficient evidence and their unreasonable litigation positions.

The court held that the estate trustee achieved complete success and that the respondents’ conduct justified an award of full indemnity costs.

Costs were ordered payable to the estate and set off against the respondents’ entitlement as beneficiaries unless paid earlier.

The court fixed costs for the two related proceedings totaling $49,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The applicant, acting as Attorney for Property and Estate Trustee, brought a motion for summary judgment to validate the deceased's 2010 will and 2008 revocation of prior wills, and an application for vacant possession of a property occupied by the respondents.

The respondents challenged the will and claimed an interest in the property based on alleged contributions and an unwritten agreement.

Applying the Hryniak framework, the court found no genuine issue for trial regarding testamentary capacity or undue influence, declaring the 2010 will and 2008 revocation valid.

The court granted vacant possession to the estate, noting the respondents failed to satisfy the Statute of Frauds or provide corroborating evidence under the Evidence Act for an interest in land, but directed a reference to determine any unjust enrichment claim for improvements made to the property.

Following the sudden death of a successful furniture manufacturer, his common-law spouse and his daughters from a previous marriage engaged in extensive litigation.

The spouse, who operated her own furniture business from the same premises as the deceased's failing company, sued the daughters, the estate, and various professional advisors for breach of contract, civil conspiracy, and unlawful interference with economic relations after the deceased's company was placed into bankruptcy and her access to equipment was interrupted.

The court dismissed the conspiracy and interference claims, finding the defendants acted reasonably to manage the insolvency, but awarded the spouse $72,520 for breach of a handwritten lease and equipment agreement.

In related applications, the court upheld a change of life insurance beneficiary executed by the deceased before his death and enforced the terms of a cohabitation agreement, allowing the spouse to remain in the family home and ordering the estate to pay $84,106.25 for property maintenance and capital expenses.

During a commercial trial involving allegations of fraud and conspiracy related to the declaration of a corporate dividend, the court ruled on an objection to expert testimony.

Defence counsel argued the plaintiff’s expert sought to give opinions not contained in previously served expert reports contrary to Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that an expert may explain or amplify matters latent in a report and allowed testimony on whether the dividend complied with statutory requirements under the Business Corporations Act, finding the issue sufficiently addressed in the reports.

However, the court prohibited testimony regarding what due diligence the accountant should have undertaken, as that issue was not contained in the expert reports or pleaded in the claim and would cause prejudice to the defence.