Wills, Estates, Trusts Law - ONCA

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Ilinka Armstrong and Dean Tully from an order removing them as estate trustees for the estate of Dan Muscat and denied leave to appeal a related costs order.

The court found that Armstrong was in a conflict of interest due to her romantic relationship with a potential purchaser of the estate’s business, failed to disclose this conflict, and did not undertake proper due diligence.

The court upheld the application judge’s decision to remove the trustees and order them to pay costs personally.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered a motion by Sandra Di Nardo to stay the enforcement of a judgment and related contempt orders pending her appeal in a contentious estate matter.

The court clarified the scope of its jurisdiction to grant a stay, distinguishing between orders that are and are not under appeal, and ultimately granted a temporary stay of the contempt order and warrant of committal pending a motion in the Superior Court.

The court found that the criteria for a stay were met, as the appeal could be rendered moot without interim relief.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Kyrle Blake Farmer, who had served as estate trustee and attorney for property for his aunt, Billie Frances Farmer.

The respondents, his brothers, challenged his distributions and expenses.

The application judge found that Billie lacked capacity to provide instructions, that the appellant’s compensation and expenses were not justified, and that he failed to keep proper accounts.

The appellant was ordered to repay significant sums to the estate.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge’s findings or orders and dismissed the appeal with costs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal concerning the interpretation of a will provision granting an option to purchase a townhouse.

The court upheld the application judge’s finding that the option was properly exercised within the required time and that the will’s terms were sufficiently certain.

The court also rejected arguments regarding the necessity of a separate agreement of purchase and sale and the relevance of the parties’ subsequent conduct.

Costs were awarded as agreed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal by the appellants, finding no palpable and overriding error or extricable legal error in the motion judge’s interpretation of minutes of settlement incorporated into a court order.

The court held that the motion judge correctly applied contractual interpretation principles, considered the relevant factual matrix, and properly refused to rely on subjective and contradictory evidence.

The appellants’ argument regarding severance of joint tenancy was rejected.

Costs of $8,000 were awarded to the estate.

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of Susan Henderson’s motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal from a judgment dismissing her will challenge application.

The court considered written submissions on costs, ultimately awarding partial indemnity costs of $3,630.69 to the responding party, Wei Wang, rejecting arguments of financial hardship, public interest, and self-representation as reasons to deny costs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Robert and Catherine Hurst, who challenged their removal as estate trustees of the Estate of Ruth Eileen Stevens MacBeth.

The court upheld the motion judge’s discretionary decisions to deny an adjournment, remove the Hursts as trustees, and order a $50,000 holdback from the estate.

The court found no error in the motion judge’s application of the legal tests and awarded costs against the appellants personally, concluding the appeal was unnecessary and not in the interests of the estate.

The moving party, Susan Henderson, sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from a judgment dismissing her application to challenge the validity of her late mother’s 2018 Will.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the motion, finding no merit to the proposed appeal and noting a pattern of delay and unreasonable conduct by the moving party.

The court emphasized the need for finality in estate matters and awarded costs to the responding party.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted an extension of time to appeal an order validating two technically deficient wills under s. 21.1(1) of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The moving parties, who had not opposed the application at first instance, explained their delay and raised serious issues about the testamentary intentions of the deceased and the application judge’s process.

The court found no undue prejudice to the responding party and dismissed a cross-motion for security for costs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered a motion by Mary McInnis, acting in person, for an extension of time to perfect her appeal in estate litigation, and a cross-motion by Sharon Hartin to dismiss the appeal for delay.

The court found that transcripts were required for the appeal and that the perfection deadline had not yet begun, rendering the extension motion moot.

The court declined to dismiss the appeal for delay, citing the appellant’s self-represented status, confusion over the rules, and lack of prejudice to the respondent.

The court imposed a deadline for the appellant to order transcripts or seek relief, failing which the respondent may move for dismissal for delay.

The appellants challenged the validity of their deceased father's 2021 will and an inter vivos property transfer, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by the respondents.

The application judge dismissed their motion for directions, finding they failed to meet the minimal evidentiary threshold under Rule 75.06.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the application judge's assessment of the evidence regarding capacity or undue influence, nor in his treatment of the evidence or sufficiency of reasons for dismissing the challenge to the property transfer.

The appellant, as estate trustee, appealed a lower court decision that found the respondent was entitled to funds in joint bank accounts.

The appellant argued the application judge erred by failing to apply the presumption of resulting trust and by concluding that the respondent was entitled to the funds without corroborating evidence of a gift.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the presumption of resulting trust argument was not raised in the court below and that there was sufficient corroborating evidence to support the application judge's finding that the deceased intended to gift the amounts in the accounts to the respondent.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment motion that found the appellants liable for knowing assistance and knowing receipt in a fraudulent scheme.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by drawing unwarranted inferences of liability based largely on the mere rejection of the appellants' evidence, rather than requiring positive proof.

The motion judge also made speculative and stereotypical findings regarding the appellants' credibility and financial arrangements.

The Court held that the rejection of a witness's evidence does not amount to positive proof of the opposite proposition.

The appeal was allowed, the summary judgment set aside, and the case remitted to the Superior Court for trial.

This appeal concerns the interpretation of a will granting trustees absolute discretion to encroach on capital for the income beneficiary's comfort and well-being.

The primary issue was whether the trustees improperly considered extraneous factors in exercising their discretion.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge erred in characterizing the trustees' distrust of the beneficiary's living arrangement as extraneous, as due diligence was warranted.

However, the court upheld the finding that the trustees' personal dislike of the beneficiary was an extraneous factor, justifying judicial intervention.

The appeal regarding the monthly encroachment was dismissed, but the arrears calculation was adjusted to reflect when sufficient financial disclosure was provided.

This appeal concerned the estate of Jeanne Hayward, specifically claims by her former husband, Alexander Hayward, regarding a Chevrolet Malibu (alleged loan vs. gift) and a Montana tractor, and a costs award.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred by ruling on the Malibu as a gift without the issue being argued, remitting it for a new trial.

The appeal regarding the tractor loan repayment being time-barred was dismissed as the defence was not raised at trial.

The Court largely upheld the substantial indemnity costs award against Alexander and supporting siblings due to their misconduct, including disputing document authenticity, but reduced the amount Leslie, as estate trustee, could recover from the estate for personal disputes.

The appellant, a former senior compliance manager at Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD Bank), appealed the dismissal of her application for lack of standing.

She sought to uncover and remedy alleged regulatory infractions and trust breaches by TD Bank in its mutual fund administration, claiming unjust enrichment and wrongful dismissal.

The motion judge dismissed her application, finding she lacked standing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the court's inherent jurisdiction to supervise trusts does not negate standing requirements, that the private interest standing test (requiring a personal and direct interest) was correctly applied, and that the appellant failed to plead facts establishing such standing, including as a constructive trustee.

The court also rejected the argument that public interest standing principles should inform private interest standing or that her whistleblower status conferred standing for private litigation.

The plaintiff, Catalyst Capital Group Inc., appealed a motion judge's decision to strike out several of its claims against Dundee Kilmer Developments Limited Partnership (DKD), Infrastructure Ontario (IO), and the Crown.

The claims arose from Catalyst's exclusion from financing the 2015 Pan/ParaPan American Games Athletes' Village project.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, reinstating Catalyst's claims against DKD for breach of a funding term sheet, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment/quantum meruit.

However, the court upheld the striking of unjust enrichment/quantum meruit claims against IO and the Crown, the public law duty claim against IO and the Crown, and the misrepresentation claim against the Crown, finding them either statute-barred, lacking direct benefit, or precluded by statutory immunity.

This decision addresses a refusals motion and an adjournment application brought by George Volk in the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The underlying dispute involves litigation under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, concerning the property of Doris Volk.

Darlene Mussato and Felicia Kowalski, who are appealing an earlier order for the sale of a jointly-owned home, brought a motion to stay that order.

During cross-examination on an affidavit supporting the stay motion, Felicia Kowalski refused to answer several questions.

The court granted George Volk's refusals motion in part, compelling Felicia Kowalski to answer specific categories of questions in writing, and adjourned the stay motion to allow for compliance and further submissions.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario addressed costs for both the appeal and the underlying summary judgment motion.

The parties agreed to no costs for the appeal due to divided success.

For the summary judgment motion, the court declined to award costs to the primary appellants (Bistricer) or respondents (Rubner), citing reasons such as new arguments on appeal and divided success.

However, the litigation guardian for Eda Rubner, who was aligned with the original applicants, was awarded partial recovery of costs for the summary judgment motion.

The appellant appealed a lower court's decision, challenging the admissibility of a recording and the finding that a joint tenancy had been severed.

The Court of Appeal rejected the argument regarding the recording's inadmissibility, finding it relevant and admissible.

The court also found no basis to interfere with the application judge's decision on joint tenancy severance, as it was a fact-specific inquiry.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the estate, noting the litigation was necessitated by the deceased's actions.