Robert Micheli

This motion concerned the passing of accounts for the estate of Arturo Perlini, specifically challenging the compensation claimed by the estate trustees and the management fee claimed by the attorney under a power of attorney.

The respondent objected to the amounts as unreasonable.

The court applied the five factors from Re Toronto General Trusts and Central Ontario Railway to determine fair and reasonable compensation, finding the claimed amounts excessive due to lack of complexity, delays, and poor investment decisions.

The court reduced the estate trustee fees from 5% to 3% of the estate value and significantly reduced the power of attorney management fee.

The applicant sought a small estate certificate and directions on the validity of the deceased's will, specifically whether it was revived by subsequent holograph codicils after being revoked by marriage.

The court found that the will was revived under s. 19(1)(b) of the Succession Law Reform Act because the November 16, 2016 holograph codicil evinced the deceased's intention to give effect to the original will.

The court rejected the applicant's proposed four-step process under s. 21.1(1) of the Act, clarifying that s. 21.1(1) allows for validation of improperly executed documents expressing testamentary intent, but not for reading intentions into documents that are not clearly inferable.

The appellant moved for an extension of time to perfect an appeal from a small claims court decision.

The respondents opposed the motion, arguing the appeal lacked merit.

The court granted the extension, applying the principle that the merits threshold on an extension motion is exceedingly low.

The court found the proposed appeal was not so completely devoid of merit that the appellant should be denied the right of appeal.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside an order validating service of a divorce application outside Canada and the resulting final divorce order.

The court considered whether the orders could be set aside under rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules on the basis of fraud, mistake, or absence of notice.

The court found that the applicant failed to disclose material facts when seeking validation of service, including knowledge of the respondent’s residential address in Ontario and information regarding her expected return to Canada.

This material non‑disclosure occurred in the context of a motion brought without notice and constituted fraud on the court process.

As a result, the order validating service and the final divorce order were both set aside.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision regarding the discharge of an employee.

The Board had found that the employee's sale of used parts and retention of the proceeds was based on a misunderstanding of workplace practice, rather than willful misconduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's conclusions were supported by the evidence before it.