P. Trudelle

The estate trustee sought directions regarding whether certain payments under a mediated consent judgment resolving family law claims could be distributed from the estate ahead of unrelated tort claims arising from aviation litigation.

The court considered the priority of equalization and dependant support claims under the Creditors’ Relief Act, the Family Law Act, and the Succession Law Reform Act.

The court held that the former spouse’s lump sum payment, characterized as an equalization payment and global settlement of retroactive and ongoing support, had priority over competing civil claims against the estate.

The court also held that the deceased’s common-law spouse’s lump sum dependant support award had priority over those claims.

However, the adult children failed to establish that they were dependants under the Succession Law Reform Act or that the amounts claimed were justified as support, and therefore their entitlements did not receive priority over the aviation claims.

The applicant and respondents are siblings involved in estate litigation over their mother's will.

The respondents brought a motion to declare valid an agreement among the beneficiaries to sell the deceased's home to one of the respondents at a reduced price, in exchange for caregiving provided before death.

The applicant opposed, arguing he did not read the full agreement, did not obtain independent legal advice, and the agreement was not signed by all parties.

The court found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and held that the essential terms were agreed upon orally and reflected in the written document he signed.

The court declared the agreement valid and binding, and dismissed the applicant's cross-motions for the sale of the property and further disclosure.

Residual beneficiaries brought a motion for directions in a contested passing of accounts relating to a large estate.

They alleged that estate trustees had taken excessive executor’s compensation and sought review and possible repayment.

A former trustee sought to add an accounting firm as a party on the basis that the firm had received a substantial portion of the executor compensation through a partnership arrangement and might be vicariously liable under the Partnerships Act if the compensation was excessive.

The court held that there was a triable issue regarding whether the partner acted within the scope of partnership business or with the firm’s authorization, and that the firm’s presence was necessary to adjudicate the issues effectively.

The firm was therefore added as a party and a procedural timetable was established for discovery and trial of the passing of accounts.