Palak Mahajan

The applicant sought leave to compel her brother, the respondent, to pass accounts for the period he acted as attorney for property for their late mother.

The applicant alleged the respondent misappropriated funds and sought tracing and preservation orders.

The court found that the mother remained independent until late 2018, after which the respondent provided a detailed informal accounting.

The court concluded there were no significant concerns regarding the respondent's management of the mother's affairs.

The application for leave to compel passing of accounts, as well as the requests for tracing and preservation orders, were dismissed.

The applicants, children and attorneys for property and personal care of the respondent, sought a declaration that he is incapable and to be appointed his guardians.

The respondent, who has Alzheimer's disease, had moved in with a woman who isolated him and interfered with his care.

The court found the respondent incapable of making decisions regarding his shelter and incapable of instructing his section 3 counsel.

The court appointed the applicants as partial guardians for personal care with respect to shelter, granting them the power to apprehend the respondent, and issued a restraining order limiting the woman's access to him.

On an estate appeal, the appellants challenged findings that upheld a later will, dismissed their application, and refused costs relief.

The court found legal and palpable-and-overriding errors in the trial-level analysis of suspicious circumstances, knowledge and approval, conflict concerns surrounding the drafting solicitor, and undue influence evidence.

The court held the impugned will invalid, granted related relief dismissing the connected Small Claims Court action, and set aside the costs order.

Applying modern estate-costs principles, the court ordered a blended costs result, including substantial indemnity costs personally against the respondent for part of first-instance costs, with the remaining amounts payable from the estate.

This is a will challenge concerning the estate of Reka Anroop.

The applicants, Bryan Anroop and Amadai Hardayal, challenged the validity of Reka’s Fourth Will dated May 19, 2022, alleging lack of knowledge and approval, lack of capacity, undue influence, forgery, and unconscionable procurement.

The respondents are Reka’s adult children, with only Chandrawattie Naqvi participating in the litigation.

The court found that the Fourth Will was valid, Reka had capacity, was not unduly influenced, and the signature was not a forgery.

The applicants’ claim for reimbursement for renovations was allowed.

The court also addressed a related Small Claims Court action regarding a life insurance payout.

This appeal arose in the context of estate litigation and focused on a procedural point regarding the service of a notice of application.

The appellants, who were the original respondents, sought to set aside a prior order (the March Order) on the basis of improper service, a motion they had previously brought and lost.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it an impermissible collateral attack on the earlier October Order, which had declined to set aside the March Order.

The court noted that the appellants had fully participated in subsequent proceedings and were not prejudiced by the initial service.