Raymond Henri Gouin

This endorsement addresses the costs of a motion to remove the defendants' lawyers of record.

Both parties filed extensive written costs submissions that significantly exceeded the page limits and formatting requirements set out in the court's previous ruling.

Rather than rejecting the non-compliant materials or deciding the matter on the excessive written record, the court ordered that the issue of costs be resolved through a two-hour oral hearing.

The parties were prohibited from filing any further materials without leave of the court.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking to remove the defendants' joint counsel of record due to conflicts of interest and seeking leave to amend their statement of claim in an ongoing estate and corporate oppression dispute.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to strike an expert affidavit relied upon by the plaintiffs.

The court found that the defendants had procedurally abandoned their motion to strike the affidavit.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remove the defendants' counsel, finding that joint representation of the various defendants created severe conflicts of interest that threatened public confidence in the administration of justice.

Finally, the court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their statement of claim and stayed the action until a litigation administrator is appointed for the deceased's estate.

The applicants brought a motion challenging the validity of their mother's will and the interpretation of a clause granting one of the respondents the option to purchase the family home for the remaining mortgage amount.

The court found the will valid, as the testator had acknowledged her signature in the presence of two witnesses, satisfying the strict compliance requirements of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The court also applied the armchair rule to interpret the purchase option, concluding the testator intended for the respondent to have the option to acquire the home even though the mortgage balance was zero at the time of death.

The estate trustee was ordered to pass accounts.

This decision concerns the costs arising from a dispute between the estate of Laurette Larivière and her son, Conrad Larivière.

The original applications involved claims by the estate regarding funds, accounting, and a life insurance policy, and counter-claims by Conrad for compensation for care and reimbursement of funeral expenses.

The court found that Conrad had substantial success in the underlying applications, particularly in retaining life insurance proceeds and securing reimbursement for funeral expenses, while the estate's claims for accounting and compensation against Conrad were largely rejected.

Consequently, the court awarded Conrad partial indemnity costs.

The applicants sought an order invalidating a will, removing an executor, appointing a new trustee, and for an accounting of the estate.

The respondents raised a preliminary issue regarding mandatory mediation in estate litigation.

The court dismissed the applicants' motion, holding that mandatory mediation under Rule 75.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure is required before a substantive hearing on the merits of the estate dispute can proceed.

The court emphasized the utility of mediation in identifying and resolving issues.

This decision addresses costs following an application where the applicant was granted a prescriptive easement, though in narrower terms than initially sought.

The applicant requested substantial indemnity costs of over $72,000, while the respondents sought partial indemnity costs of over $21,000, each claiming to be the successful party.

The court found the applicant's costs claim "breath-taking" and disproportionate to the modest value of the property and the limited scope of the argument.

Considering that the applicant sought an unlimited right-of-way but received an order reflecting only occasional use, and the respondents had not offered to formalize this occasional use, the court determined that neither party was entirely successful in their costs positions.

The applicant sought a prescriptive easement over the respondents' property to access her landlocked property.

The court found that the applicant established the necessary elements for a prescriptive easement, specifically for pedestrian use, limited to a maximum of twice per year, for a 20-year period commencing in 1979.

The respondents were ordered to provide the applicant with a key or other means to open the gate to enjoy her access.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion to remove the respondent as estate trustee of their father's wills pending litigation over the wills' validity.

The appellant challenged the wills, which left the bulk of the multi-million dollar estate to the respondent, citing lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, and the respondent's conflict of interest in intermingling the family business with his own company.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred by prematurely deciding the ultimate issue of testamentary capacity and by ignoring the respondent's significant conflicts of interest.

The respondent was removed as trustee pending the litigation, and an independent trustee was appointed.

La requérante a déposé une requête pour destituer l'intimé de son rôle de fiduciaire successoral, alléguant un conflit d'intérêts dû à des modifications importantes au testament du défunt père des parties, qui excluaient la requérante de la distribution des biens principaux.

La requérante a également remis en question la capacité testamentaire du père.

Le tribunal a rejeté la requête, concluant qu'il n'y avait pas de preuve concrète de l'incapacité du testateur ou d'une conduite négligente ou malicieuse de l'intimé, et que le simple conflit familial ne justifiait pas la destitution du fiduciaire.