Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: Prelorentzos v. Havaris, 2016 ONCA 727

Date: 2016-10-04

Docket: C60501

Feldman, Epstein and Miller JJ.A.

Between

Marie-Clair Prelorentzos

Respondent

and

Helen Havaris

Appellant

Counsel:

Glenroy K. Bastien, for the appellant

Norman Pizzale, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: September 26, 2016

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Grace of the Superior Court of Justice, dated May 4, 2015.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The trial judge made an order under the Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26, finding the appellant to be the common law spouse of the deceased and entitled to a support order in the amount of $30,000. He also ordered the appellant to pay the costs of $20,000 to the respondent.

[2] The appellant challenges the trial judgment on four grounds. She says the trial judge erred in not awarding her the deceased’s house instead of the $30,000; that he erred in not finding that her contributions to their life and upkeep of the house did not constitute a constructive trust; he erred on the issue of conflict of interest; and in the costs order which she says should have come out of the estate.

[3] We see no error in the approach or findings of the trial judge. He gave lengthy and detailed reasons which considered all of the evidence. He made findings of fact based on the evidence. He had problems with the appellant’s credibility based on, among other things, the non-disclosure of her tax returns and on some inconsistencies in the financial information she did provide. There is no basis to interfere with those findings. The trial judge considered the applicable case law and applied it.

[4] The costs award is a highly discretionary order to which this court accords great deference. The trial judge followed the new approach to costs in estate litigation by awarding costs payable by a party and not out of the estate. He was entitled to exercise his discretion in that way.

[5] The appellant also raises the issue of the appellant’s lawyer’s alleged conflict of interest but seeks no remedy for it at this level. The issue was dealt with by the trial judge satisfactorily in the circumstances.

[6] In the factum the appellant also challenges the appointment of the respondent as estate trustee but that issue was not pursued in oral argument. We would not give effect to that submission.

[7] The respondent brought fresh evidence before the court that disclosed that a corporation of which the appellant is the sole director and officer had, following trial, an undisclosed bank account containing $52,000. No response to this evidence was proffered. The respondent asked the court to treat the evidence as corroborative of the trial judge’s findings. We agree with that submission.

[8] In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondent on the partial indemnity scale in the amount of $18,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

“K. Feldman J.A.”

“Gloria Epstein J.A.”

“B.W. Miller J.A.”