Praniet Chopra

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed an appeal concerning an international commercial arbitration award.

The application judge had set aside the award due to a reasonable apprehension of bias by the arbitrator, who had accepted a second, unrelated arbitration engagement from the appellants' counsel without disclosure to the respondents.

The Court of Appeal held that the application judge erred by applying a subjective test for disclosure and bias, rather than the objective test mandated by the UNCITRAL Model Law.

The Court found no breach of the arbitrator's legal duty to disclose and no reasonable apprehension of bias, as the second arbitration involved no common parties or overlapping issues, and the arbitrator was not aware of the parties' subjective disclosure expectations.

The matter was remitted to the Superior Court to address other grounds for attacking the award.

The applicants, a beneficiary and a legatee, sought to enforce a 2010 settlement agreement and obtain payment of a legacy from an estate.

The former estate trustee had delayed the administration of the estate and the transfer of a property for over a decade.

The court ordered the payment of the $20,000 legacy with 2% interest, reimbursed the former trustee for proven property expenses, denied the beneficiary's claim for lost rental income, and awarded costs to the applicants payable from the estate.

The defendants moved to stay or dismiss the portion of the action seeking relief regarding the transfer of land in Guyana by the deceased to the defendants.

The defendants argued lack of jurisdiction simpliciter, forum non conveniens, and improper service outside Ontario.

The court found it had jurisdiction simpliciter based on the in personam exception for equitable claims, as the plaintiffs alleged undue influence.

The court declined to apply forum non conveniens, noting the parties and key connections were in Ontario or New Jersey, not Guyana.

The court also found service outside Ontario was valid under Rule 17.02(i).

The motion was dismissed.

This decision addresses a costs motion arising from two guardianship applications that became moot upon the death of the incapable person.

The applicant sister and respondent brother, who were in a bitter dispute over their late father's guardianship, sought costs from each other.

The court found that the applicant was motivated by her father's best interests and did not act unreasonably to cause unnecessary costs, thus dismissing the respondent's claim for substantial indemnity costs against her.

However, the court also found no principled basis to award the applicant her costs, noting that neither party was entirely blameless and the underlying issues were not judicially determined.

Ultimately, no costs were awarded to either party.

Raymon DeRanney died intestate.

Fritzie Deleon and her daughter Caseylynn Deleon brought an application for dependant's relief from his estate.

Fritzie's claim was abandoned.

The court found that Caseylynn, though not a biological child, was a "dependant" under the Succession Law Reform Act because the deceased had demonstrated a settled intention to treat her as a child of his family, primarily through providing shelter and significant financial support for over 15 years.

The court awarded Caseylynn $40,955 for her post-secondary education, rejecting her claim for an equal share of the estate with the deceased's biological daughter, Sonya, due to insufficient evidence of equal treatment intention and Caseylynn's own financial disclosure deficiencies.

The court also addressed costs for the abandoned claim.