Nipuni Nuwanthi Panamaldeniya

The applicants challenged the validity of the deceased's 2019 and 2020 wills on grounds of undue influence and testamentary incapacity.

The respondents brought a motion arguing the applicants had not met the minimum evidentiary threshold (MET) required to challenge a will.

The court found that the applicants failed to establish the MET.

Medical evidence demonstrated the testator had no cognitive decline and was fully capable.

Evidence of undue influence was based on speculation and supposition rather than concrete facts.

The respondent's motion was granted and the applicants' motion for further production was dismissed.

The applicant, Mehdi Zarrin-Mehr, brought a motion seeking the appointment of a professional estate trustee during litigation (ETDL) for the estate of Sadollah Zarrinmehr, alleging hostility, lack of transparency, and disregard for his interests by the current estate trustee, Soraya Shokrai.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant's allegations were not sufficiently substantiated and that the estate was straightforward, making the additional costs of a professional ETDL unnecessary and detrimental to the beneficiaries.

The court emphasized that the existing Restated No Dealings Order adequately protected the estate assets.

This endorsement addresses a motion brought by the respondent, Soraya Shokrai, seeking to dismiss the applicant, Mehdi Zarrin-Mehr's, challenge to the validity of a 1999 will.

The applicant, the deceased's son from a previous marriage, alleged suspicious circumstances surrounding the will's execution, including missing pages, inconsistent numbering, and a discrepancy in the stated number of pages.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding that the applicant had met the minimal evidentiary threshold required to call the will's validity into question.

The court emphasized its inquisitorial role in probate matters and the need for formal proof of the will given the anomalies and the subscribing witnesses' evidence.

The decision allows the applicant to proceed with discovery, including seeking production from lawyers involved in the estate.

This appeal concerned a limitation period defence in an unjust enrichment claim.

The respondent, a hotel, had overpaid hydro costs to the appellant, a condominium, for years due to a flawed utility-sharing formula.

The errors were not discovered until 2017, and the action was commenced in 2018.

The trial judge rejected the limitation defence, finding the errors were not apparent and the respondent exercised reasonable due diligence.

On appeal, the appellant argued errors in the trial judge's discoverability and due diligence analysis, and conflation of actual and constructive knowledge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's findings of fact or legal conclusions, affirming that the errors were not reasonably discoverable and due diligence was exercised.

The Court also rejected arguments regarding juristic reason and equitable set-off.