Rebecca Studin

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 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.