R. D’Ambrosio

This decision resolves the issue of costs following an unsuccessful motion by some respondents (Kortes and Adeline) to stay an application challenging two wills.

The applicants (Gerritse and Teffer) successfully resisted the stay.

The court awarded costs to the applicants, fixed at $28,991.00, on a partial indemnity basis.

A blended costs award was ordered, with one-third ($9,663.66) to be paid by the unsuccessful moving parties (Kortes and Adeline) and two-thirds ($19,327.34) to be paid out of the Estate.

The court declined to address costs related to the appointment of an estate trustee during litigation, as that appointment was made on consent.

The respondents brought a motion to stay an application challenging the validity of two wills, pending a determination of the applicant's paternity.

The respondents argued the applicant was not the deceased's half-brother and therefore lacked standing.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the respondents could challenge the applicant's paternity within the application itself, and that staying the proceedings would cause undue delay and injustice to the parties.

Following earlier estate litigation and an unsuccessful appeal concerning the beneficiaries of an estate and a notice of objection to the issuance of a certificate of appointment of estate trustee, the respondents sought further costs against the applicant.

The applicant had failed to withdraw his notice of objection despite explicit direction from the Court of Appeal and required additional steps by the respondents to have the registrar remove it.

The court considered the costs discretion under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and the factors in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

While the applicant’s conduct justified a costs award, the court found it did not rise to the level of sanctionable behaviour warranting elevated costs.

Costs were therefore awarded on a partial indemnity basis.

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.