Robert Levesque

The court considered whether shares in a co-operative housing corporation, registered to Anne and Jacob Glickman, were held jointly or as tenants in common.

The Estate of Yaacov Glickman sought a declaration that it was the sole beneficial and legal owner of the shares by right of survivorship.

The court found that the shares were held jointly, and upon Anne’s death, her interest passed to Jacob by survivorship.

The court rejected arguments to expand the definition of “land” in the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act to include co-op shares, holding that the Family Law Act presumption of joint tenancy applied.

This appeal arose from a dispute among siblings concerning the care and property of their nonagenarian mother.

The appellant challenged the application judge's decision, which declared the mother incapable, validated existing powers of attorney, and ordered the appellant to account for funds held on a resulting trust.

The appellant alleged procedural unfairness, including failure to consider his materials, denial of an adjournment, and improper dismissal of his counter-application, and sought leave to appeal the costs order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error or procedural unfairness, and denied leave to appeal costs, affirming the application judge's discretion.

This case involves a dispute among three siblings, Bill, Mary, and John, concerning the management of their 92-year-old mother, Alpida Vrantsidis', property and personal care.

Bill and Mary sought declarations regarding the validity and enforceability of the 1995 Powers of Attorney (POAs) and an order for John to account for $61,000 he received from their mother.

John, self-represented, brought a cross-application seeking to invalidate the POAs or remove Bill and Mary as attorneys.

The court dismissed John's request for an adjournment, declared the 1995 POAs valid and operative, confirmed Alpida Vrantsidis' incapacity to manage her property and personal care, and ordered John to account for the $61,000 under a resulting trust.

John's application to remove Bill and Mary or invalidate the POAs was dismissed due to lack of merit and evidence of misconduct.

This case involves a dispute among three siblings, Bill, Mary, and John, concerning the management of their 92-year-old mother, Alpida Vrantsidis', property and personal care.

Bill and Mary sought declarations regarding the validity and enforceability of the 1995 Powers of Attorney (POAs) and an order for John to account for $61,000 he received from their mother.

John, self-represented, brought a cross-application seeking to invalidate the POAs or remove Bill and Mary as attorneys.

The court dismissed John's request for an adjournment, declared the 1995 POAs valid and operative, confirmed Alpida Vrantsidis' incapacity to manage her property and personal care, and ordered John to account for the $61,000 under a resulting trust.

John's application to remove Bill and Mary or invalidate the POAs was dismissed due to lack of merit and evidence of misconduct.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's claim for dependent relief and a finding that a foreign divorce decree was valid, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondents sought substantial indemnity costs of $84,000, while the applicant argued the estate should bear the costs.

The court rejected the applicant's argument that the estate should pay, noting the litigation was driven solely by the applicant.

The court awarded the respondents partial indemnity costs of $50,000.

The applicant sought a declaration that his 2015 Iranian divorce from his deceased ex-wife was invalid, and claimed dependent relief against her estate.

The deceased and their children were killed in the Flight 752 crash.

The court found the divorce was valid under the common law 'real and substantial connection' test, as both parties were born, raised, married, and operated businesses in Iran.

The applicant's alternative claim for dependent relief was dismissed because he failed to provide supporting evidence and was denied leave to split his case by adducing fresh evidence after cross-examinations.

The moving party sought an order requiring the non-party, who was the partner of the unsuccessful applicant in a will challenge, to pay the costs of the application.

The moving party alleged the non-party was a maintainer of the lawsuit and his involvement constituted an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the non-party had a genuine interest in supporting his partner, did not intermeddle improperly, and his conduct did not amount to an abuse of process.

The court also upheld the assertion of litigation privilege over communications between the non-party and the applicant's lawyers.