Rebecca Studin

The appellant appealed a judgment finding that a 2006 Transfer/Deed and Direction did not have testamentary effect, and sought leave to appeal a costs order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the appellant acknowledged the documents did not comply with the requirements of a valid will under the Succession Law Reform Act and could not identify a legal basis for their validity.

Leave to appeal the costs order was denied as no reviewable error was identified in the application judge's exercise of discretion.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

This decision concerns an application by Dr. Kelly Diane Riedel regarding the validity and administration of the Dmyant Sangha Family Trust and the Sangha Property Trust.

Dr. Riedel alleges that the trusts are shams, created to defeat her family law entitlements, and seeks various forms of relief including the production of legal records and the conversion of the application to an action.

The court addresses the legal standards for sham trusts, the relevance of disputed facts, and the entitlement to privileged documents.

The application to convert to an action is dismissed, and the court sets out a process for determining threshold questions regarding the validity of the trusts.

The moving party sought an order under Rule 39.03 to examine a non-party lawyer and accountant regarding an estate freeze transaction, and for the production of their files.

The responding parties opposed the examination and production of the lawyer's file on the basis of solicitor-client privilege.

The court held that the responding parties implicitly waived solicitor-client privilege by pleading that they relied entirely on the moving party's misrepresentations when signing the estate freeze documents.

The motion was granted, and the non-parties were ordered to produce relevant documents and attend examinations.

The plaintiff and third party brought motions for summary judgment against the defendant regarding an equipment lease for a commercial printer.

The defendant had stopped making lease payments, alleging the printer was defective, but had signed agreements containing broad exclusion clauses.

The court found the exclusion clauses were neither unconscionable nor contrary to public policy, noting the defendant was a sophisticated commercial entity that chose not to read the contracts.

The court granted summary judgment for both the plaintiff and third party, awarding damages and costs, and strongly criticized the defendant's failure to file a factum.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary decision finding him guilty of misconduct for making an unlawful or unnecessary arrest during the G20 Summit.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer made a manifest error by appearing to reverse the burden of proof, requiring the officer to prove he had reasonable and probable grounds.

Furthermore, the Hearing Officer failed to adequately analyze the officer's subjective belief and whether there was good and sufficient cause for the arrest.

Given the excessive delay of over five years, the Commission revoked the finding of misconduct rather than remitting the matter for a new hearing.

The appellants appealed from a judgment dismissing their action and declaring the appellant a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the reasons and conclusions of the motion judge and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondents.

The defendants moved to dismiss an action seeking a declaration of ownership of a Toronto property and related damages, while also applying to have the respondent declared a vexatious litigant under s. 140(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court reviewed decades of prior litigation involving the same parties and property, including multiple unsuccessful actions and appeals challenging a 1998 vesting order confirming ownership in the current purchasers.

The court held that the claims constituted re‑litigation of previously determined issues and were barred by issue estoppel, abuse of process, a missed court‑ordered deadline, and an expired limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

Given the respondent’s persistent pattern of meritless proceedings, repeated appeals, harassment of opposing parties and counsel, and failure to pay costs, the court concluded that the statutory criteria for a vexatious litigant order were met.

Appeal from a Master’s order dismissing a motion to consolidate or have five related estate, trust, negligence, and third-party proceedings heard together under Rule 6.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellants argued the Master misapplied Rule 6, lacked jurisdiction findings, and failed to grant ancillary relief including lifting a stay.

The court held the Master properly exercised her discretion, correctly considered the balance of convenience, and reasonably concluded that consolidating the proceedings would unfairly burden non-family parties with minimal benefit.

The court further held the Master correctly determined that certain requested relief, including effectively converting an application to an action and transferring estate matters, fell outside her jurisdiction.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The court heard a motion by defendants to dismiss a property ownership action and an application to declare the opposing litigant a vexatious litigant under the Courts of Justice Act.

The action attempted to re‑litigate ownership of a Toronto property that had been definitively resolved in earlier proceedings dating back to 1998.

The court held the claims were barred by issue estoppel, abuse of process, missed court‑ordered deadlines, and expired limitation periods under the Limitations Act, 2002.

Given the litigant’s extensive history of repeatedly initiating unsuccessful and duplicative proceedings over decades, the court also found the statutory criteria for a vexatious litigant designation were satisfied.

The action was dismissed and the respondent was declared a vexatious litigant.

The defendants brought motions to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim for professional negligence.

The plaintiffs alleged negligence against a lawyer and a capacity assessor involved in a guardianship application for the plaintiff's mother.

The court struck the statement of claim in its entirety, finding it disclosed no reasonable cause of action against the capacity assessor or the lawyer for two of the plaintiffs.

The court also found the pleading was scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious.

The corporate plaintiff's claim was additionally struck for failing to be represented by counsel.

One plaintiff was granted leave to amend the claim against the lawyer defendants only.

TSX Inc. sought intervenor status in a hearing and review requested by the respondent regarding a decision of Market Regulation Services Inc. (RS).

The respondent had challenged the validity of the Universal Market Integrity Rules (UMIR) and the TSX's delegation of market regulation to RS.

The Commission granted TSX limited intervenor status, finding that the TSX had a direct interest in the proceeding because its market regulation and enforcement regime was being challenged, and that its participation would be useful without unfairly prejudicing the existing parties.