Natalia Rosa Angelini

Dispute over the calculation of a CPI-based Indexing Factor for annuity payments under a testamentary trust.

The testatrix's will established a testamentary trust providing the respondent beneficiary with an annuity, with the Indexing Factor to be determined by the trustees using the Consumer Price Index.

The respondent beneficiary challenged the trustee's CPI calculation methodology, arguing the wrong CPI chart, wrong date, and wrong calculation approach were used.

The court held that the will conferred discretion on the trustees to determine the Indexing Factor, and that determination was conclusive and binding on all beneficiaries absent bad faith.

In the alternative, the court found the trustee's calculations were correct, consistent with Statistics Canada methodology and the will's terms.

The court fixes costs in a dispute over the administration and interpretation of the John Szewczyk Testamentary Trust, specifically regarding the calculation of indexed payments to a beneficiary.

The court reviews the parties' positions, the applicable legal principles for costs in estate litigation, and the proportionality of the legal fees claimed.

Ultimately, the court orders that all parties' reasonable costs be paid from the trust, but reduces the amounts claimed by the applicant and one respondent due to concerns about excessiveness and proportionality.

The court considered motions for costs personally against George Windsor, who commenced proceedings on behalf of Gilles Jozias Overtveld and Gi-Las Management and Maintenance Ltd. without proper authority.

The action was found to be duplicative, meritless, and a waste of resources.

The court fixed costs on a substantial indemnity basis against Mr. Windsor personally, disallowed him from charging legal fees to the plaintiffs, and set out the principles for awarding costs in such circumstances.

The court granted the applicant trustee’s request to pass accounts, dispense with a formal passing for a subsequent period, approve compensation, remove herself as trustee, and appoint CIBC Trust as successor.

The court found the trustee’s compensation reasonable, the objections of the respondent Michael Wilson unsubstantiated, and awarded increased costs against Michael due to his conduct.

The decision addresses the administration of a testamentary trust, the entitlement to compensation, and the allocation of costs in estate litigation.

The applicant brought a motion for directions in an estate dispute, seeking the production of the deceased's medical, solicitor, and police records, as well as leave to examine the deceased's solicitors.

The applicant challenged a 2022 codicil that appointed the respondent as sole estate trustee, alleging lack of capacity and undue influence.

The court dismissed the request for additional medical records, finding no evidence to support a fishing expedition.

The court partially granted the request for solicitor records, ordering production of the 2019 estate planning file but protecting files related to a 2006 fraud action and a 2009 will.

The court also ordered the production of unredacted police records regarding domestic disputes at the deceased's home.

The applicants, Ada De Novellis and Michael Ceci, brought a motion within a guardianship application concerning their 92-year-old mother, Dolorosa Ceci, who suffers from dementia.

They sought an accounting of proceeds from a charge registered by the respondent, Dario Ceci, against Dolorosa's property, an order for Dario to reimburse Dolorosa for legal fees paid from her assets, and an interim injunction restraining Dario from dealing with Dolorosa's assets.

The court dismissed the motion for an accounting, finding Dario had provided sufficient explanation.

It also dismissed the request for reimbursement of legal fees, instead ordering a charge on Dario's home as security.

Finally, the court dismissed the injunction request, finding no irreparable harm as Dolorosa had sufficient security.

The respondent estate trustee moved for leave to sell the estate's principal asset, a 10-acre homestead, to pay debts and avoid ongoing costs.

The applicant sibling opposed the sale, seeking instead to sever the property into two 5-acre parcels to keep her half in kind, and brought a late cross-motion to appoint an Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL).

The court adjourned the cross-motion to ensure a fair evidentiary record and declined to authorize the sale immediately, instead ordering a case conference to establish terms for the applicant to present a fully costed severance plan.

Following earlier endorsements granting relief to the applicant in an estate dispute, the court determined the issue of costs.

The judge reviewed the parties’ written submissions, including settlement positions, and applied the discretionary factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Considering the expectations of the parties in the event of an unsuccessful outcome, the court held that the applicant was entitled to recover her costs.

The costs were ordered payable out of the estate and fixed in a specified amount including taxes and disbursements.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice regarding the interpretation of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the Act is clear and unambiguous.

The appellant homeowner appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent contractor damages for unpaid holdbacks and construction extras, while the contractor cross-appealed the partial allowance of the homeowner's counterclaim for deficiencies and delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in her assessment of the conflicting evidence regarding the construction of the new home, including the parties' failure to strictly follow the contractual procedure for requesting extras.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

On consent of both parties, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal without costs.

The appellant, a shareholder and resident in the respondent housing co-operative, appealed the dismissal of her claim to set aside levies of approximately $900.

She argued there was a reasonable apprehension of bias by the trial judge and a misapprehension of evidence regarding notice of a budget meeting.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conduct demonstrated patience and an attempt to assist an unrepresented party, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding on notice.

The appellant appealed a judgment ordering him to repay a $90,000 loan to the respondent estate.

The appellant argued the action was barred by the six-year limitation period because the loan arose from a promissory note with a fixed repayment date of November 30, 1990.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding that the debt was a continuing one and that the appellant had acknowledged the debt on multiple occasions, taking it outside the limitation period.