Patrick J. Morrissey

The applicant son sought to set aside an arbitration award that ordered him to vacate his deceased mother's condominium, arguing he was a tenant of the estate and the Landlord and Tenant Board had exclusive jurisdiction.

The respondent estate trustee brought a cross-application for vacant possession.

The court found that the applicant's prior arrangement with his mother was not governed by the Residential Tenancies Act because they shared a kitchen, and no new tenancy agreement was formed with the estate.

The court also dismissed the applicant's claim that he was treated unfairly during the arbitration, noting he made a strategic choice to proceed on a paper record.

The estate's application for vacant possession was granted.

An estate trustee appealed a summary judgment dismissing a claim as statute barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The deceased had loaned money secured by a promissory note payable on demand or upon sale of specified property.

The trial judge found the limitation period began when the deceased became aware the property had been sold.

The estate trustee made demand in May 2015 and commenced action in July 2015, more than two years after the limitation period began.

The appellant argued that section 7 of the Limitations Act should extend the limitation period to account for the time needed for the estate trustee to review the deceased's affairs and obtain probate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that section 7 does not apply to deceased persons and that an estate trustee cannot be construed as a litigation guardian for purposes of the statute.

The defendants sought leave to amend their statement of defence to introduce new allegations regarding a complicated ownership scheme and a prior conflict of interest involving their former counsel, who was also the plaintiff's agent's deceased brother.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing irreparable prejudice due to the death of the former counsel.

The court granted leave to amend, finding that the amendments were prima facie meritorious and any prejudice could be compensated by costs or adjournment, aligning with the principle of proportionality to ensure all relevant information is before the court.

The appellants, nieces of the deceased and remainder beneficiaries of his estate, appealed a decision declaring the Constantine Gicas Family Trust validly created.

They argued the trust lacked the three certainties and was not properly constituted.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the trust was validly declared and constituted, and that specific shares were properly transferred to it.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal the costs award, finding that because the litigation was reasonably necessary to administer the estate due to the testator's conduct, costs should be paid out of the estate rather than by the appellants personally.