Rebecca Rauws

The applicant brought a motion to appoint replacement estate trustees for the estate of her late husband, following the resignation of the previous trustees amidst a highly fractious family dispute.

The applicant sought the appointment of three family members, while the responding parties sought the appointment of a neutral third party, either Scotiatrust or a senior lawyer.

The court found that the extreme animosity between the two family camps necessitated a neutral institutional trustee to prevent further litigation and ensure the estate's administration.

Scotiatrust was appointed as the Estate Trustee During Litigation.

The four Libfeld brothers, equal owners of The Conservatory Group (a multi-billion dollar real estate development business), experienced a complete and irreparable breakdown of their personal and professional relationships.

The applicants sought various remedies including a restructuring protocol or a restricted wind-up, while the respondents sought a buy-sell process or a structured buyout.

The court found no actionable oppression by any party, attributing the disputes to extreme mutual dysfunction.

Concluding that the brothers could no longer work together and that none of their proposed remedies were workable or fair, the court ordered a court-supervised wind-up and sale of the business under the OBCA and Partnerships Act, permitting all brothers to participate as bidders.

The four Libfeld brothers, equal owners of The Conservatory Group (a multi-billion dollar real estate development business), experienced a complete and irreparable breakdown of their personal and professional relationships.

The applicants sought various remedies including a restructuring protocol or a restricted wind-up, while the respondents sought a buy-sell process or a structured buyout.

The court found no actionable oppression by any party, attributing the disputes to extreme mutual dysfunction.

Concluding that the brothers could no longer work together and that none of their proposed remedies were workable or fair, the court ordered a court-supervised wind-up and sale of the business under the OBCA and Partnerships Act, permitting all brothers to participate as bidders.

The applicant, a trustee and settlor of a family trust, sought to recover over $1 million from the trust for the 1993 transfer of a farm property, construction costs, and maintenance expenses.

The respondent beneficiaries opposed the claims and sought the removal of the trustees.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the applicant's financial claims, finding them to be either undocumented gifts or barred by the expired limitation periods.

The court ordered two beneficiaries to pay arrears for rent and utilities, and ordered one to vacate the property due to serious breaches of her tenancy agreement.

Finally, the court removed all three trustees for failing to properly administer the trust and protect the beneficiaries' interests, ordering their replacement by a professional third-party trustee.

In an ongoing estate dispute between a widow and her children, the applicant widow brought a motion to add two corporate parties, admit a late affidavit regarding her health, substitute written interrogatories for oral cross-examination, and determine the scope of cross-examination.

The court added the corporate parties, finding one to be a necessary party.

The court admitted the late affidavit but excluded the attached medical reports as inadmissible hearsay.

The court declined to dispense with oral cross-examination, finding insufficient evidence of serious harm, but ordered specific accommodations for the 93-year-old applicant.

Finally, the court limited the scope of cross-examination to the three issues previously deemed urgent to conserve judicial resources.

The applicant daughter sought to remove her brother as their incapable mother's Attorney for Personal Care.

The mother had lived with the applicant for 11 years, during which the applicant provided comprehensive daily care and acted as the de facto decision-maker.

The brother, despite being the appointed attorney, failed to act in good faith, refused to reimburse care expenses, and failed to consent to necessary medical treatments.

The court allowed the application, removing the brother and declaring the applicant as the Attorney for Personal Care, finding that the siblings' animosity prevented them from working cooperatively in their mother's best interests.