Robert McGlashan

The appellants appealed an order validating unsigned 2024 draft wills under s. 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The deceased had executed a will in 2018 and improperly executed wills in 2022, before having new drafts prepared in 2024 that remained unsigned at his death.

The Court of Appeal admitted the 2018 will as fresh evidence, set aside the validation of the 2024 drafts because they did not reflect final testamentary intentions, and remitted the issue of the 2022 wills' validity to the Superior Court for fact-finding.

This is a costs decision in an estate administration dispute between two co-estate trustees.

The applicant sought costs of approximately $125,933 on a substantial indemnity basis (or $87,728 on a partial indemnity basis) following a successful application to compel the respondent to sign documents necessary for estate administration.

The respondent argued the application was unnecessary and that all parties should bear their own costs.

The court awarded costs of $16,000 all-inclusive on a partial indemnity basis, finding that while the applicant acted reasonably in bringing the application, the claimed costs were disproportionate to the modest estate value and the applicant's own conduct in refusing to fund estate counsel contributed to the escalation of legal expenses.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Susan Hutchison’s appeal from an order requiring her to pay spousal support to Matthew Bosrock and her application for leave to appeal the trial judge’s costs award.

The court found no error in the trial judge’s assessment of income, consideration of mortgage repayments, or imputation of income.

The court also upheld the costs award, finding that the trial judge properly considered the divided success at trial and the time spent on the main issues.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal of Herbert and Jacqueline Watkins, setting aside the order dismissing their action and the associated costs order.

The motion judge had dismissed the action for failure to appoint counsel or deliver a notice of intent to act in person under r. 15.04(8) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and for delay under r. 24.01.

The Court of Appeal found that the removal order for the appellants' counsel was not effective, as it was not properly served, and that the motion judge erred in relying on r. 15.04(8).

The finding of inordinate and inexcusable delay was also found to be unreasonable due to confusion over representation.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the appellants.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted an extension of time to appeal an order validating two technically deficient wills under s. 21.1(1) of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The moving parties, who had not opposed the application at first instance, explained their delay and raised serious issues about the testamentary intentions of the deceased and the application judge’s process.

The court found no undue prejudice to the responding party and dismissed a cross-motion for security for costs.

The applicant wife sought a declaration of sole ownership and immediate return of the parties' 10-year-old Yorkshire Terrier, Meg, which the respondent husband had unilaterally withheld.

The court applied the expanded approach to pet ownership, considering factors beyond mere purchase, and found that the wife was the lawful owner based on original purchase and microchip registrations, veterinary records, and consistent care arrangements.

The court dismissed the husband's arguments and ordered the immediate return of the dog and payment of costs to the applicant.

The appellant initiated an application seeking various reliefs concerning his parents' guardianship and property, including removing an attorney and an accounting for alleged undue influence.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant abandoned key challenges, including those related to powers of attorney and capacity.

The application judge dismissed the remaining claims, finding no live issues or cognizable causes of action.

The appellant appealed, arguing errors in the dismissal and the costs order, and sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the abandoned claims left no relevant issues for adjudication and upheld the discretionary costs order.

Following the dismissal of a guardianship application, the respondents sought costs.

The applicant had abandoned his claims on the eve of the hearing after failing to undermine a court-ordered capacity assessment of his mother.

The court found the applicant's procedural complaints insufficient to depart from the normal rule that costs follow the event.

The applicant was ordered to pay costs of $100,000 each to his sister and mother on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant brought an application seeking to remove his sister and mother as attorneys for his parents and to be appointed as his father's guardian.

On the eve of the hearing, the applicant abandoned his challenges to his parents' capacity and powers of attorney, instead seeking declarations regarding financial impropriety and an accounting.

The court dismissed the application, finding that without a challenge to capacity or the powers of attorney, there were no cognizable causes of action remaining and the applicant had no legal basis to compel an accounting or seek abstract declarations.

The appellants appealed a case conference endorsement and order of a master concerning discovery scheduling and responsibility for costs after examinations for discovery were cancelled due to hazardous winter weather conditions.

The appellants argued that a discovery plan under Rule 29.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure superseded the timetable, that sanctions under Rule 34.15 applied to counsel’s non‑attendance, and that the master failed to properly consider weather evidence.

The court held that no valid written discovery plan existed and that the master’s timetable governed the order of examinations.

Rule 34.15 applies only to the conduct of the person being examined, not to counsel conducting the examination.

Finding no error of law, misapprehension of evidence, or improper exercise of discretion, the court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the master’s conclusions.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's order requiring him to pay table child support and a percentage of section 7 expenses for his adult child attending university.

The father argued that the child attending university constituted a material change in circumstances under their Amending Agreement, and alternatively claimed undue hardship.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's interpretation of the agreement or her conclusion that the father failed to prove undue hardship.

The court also declined to remit the matter for a full hearing, emphasizing the principle of proportionality in child support variations.