4 total
Trustees ordered to reimburse estate for undervalued home sale and invalid post-death cheque cashing.
This application concerned a dispute over the administration of an estate, specifically the sale of the deceased's home to one of the estate trustees and a $40,000 cheque cashed by another trustee after the deceased's death.
The court found that the trustees breached their fiduciary duties by selling the home below fair market value and that the $40,000 cheque was not a valid gift as it was cashed after the donor's death.
The court ordered the trustee who purchased the home to reimburse the estate for the undervaluation and the trustee who cashed the cheque to return the funds.
The court declined to remove the trustees or nullify the home sale.
Appeal dismissed; spouse of registered landowner lacks standing as an 'owner' under the Drainage Act.
The appellant appealed a decision of the Acting Drainage Referee denying him standing under the Drainage Act to appeal a drainage works report.
The appellant argued he had standing as the spouse of the registered owner of the affected property and as a resident who paid bills.
The Divisional Court upheld the Referee's decision, finding it reasonable that the Family Law Act did not confer an ownership interest for the purposes of the Drainage Act, and that residing in the home did not make the appellant an 'owner'.
The court also dismissed arguments related to the Protection of Public Participation Act and a request for a stay, ultimately dismissing the appeal and awarding costs to the respondents.
Appeal of Drainage Referee's interlocutory orders dismissed for lack of standing and jurisdiction.
The appellant sought to appeal several interlocutory orders made by an Acting Referee under the Drainage Act, including an order dismissing a recusal motion.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on multiple grounds.
First, the appellant lacked standing as he was not the registered owner of the property.
Second, the orders appealed from were interlocutory and therefore final and not subject to appeal under section 106(3) of the Drainage Act.
Finally, the court found no unfairness in the Acting Referee hearing his own recusal motion, as this accords with usual practice.
Costs reduced to reflect proportionality in estate litigation.
This was a costs endorsement following a prior decision on trustee compensation in an estate matter.
The court considered competing costs requests from an objector, a charitable beneficiary, and the solicitor for the estate trustee.
Applying proportionality principles drawn from appellate and estate costs authorities, the court declined to award the full amounts sought and reduced the claims where the work performed did not justify full recovery.
Fixed costs were awarded to the objector, the charitable beneficiary, the estate trustee's solicitor, and another participant.
