Robert Watt

The applicant sought to have a holographic will, allegedly made by his deceased brother, accepted as the last will and testament over a previously probated 1995 will.

The applicant had previously attempted to amend a statement of claim in a related action to plead this new cause of action, but that motion was dismissed by Lederman J. on the basis that the claim was statute-barred and the applicant failed to demonstrate due diligence in discovering the will.

The court held that the current application raised the exact same question decided by Lederman J. Applying the doctrine of issue estoppel, the court found the applicant was precluded from relitigating whether his claims were statute-barred.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend his statement of claim and adjourn the trial.

He sought to add a new cause of action based on a holograph will he claimed to have recently discovered, which would entitle him to the entirety of his deceased brother's estate.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed amendments raised a new, statute-barred cause of action.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate a triable issue of discoverability, as his explanation for misplacing and finding the will lacked due diligence.

Furthermore, the court held that granting the amendment would cause non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The applicant sought an order declaring a codicil to a deceased testator’s will invalid and removing the respondent as executor and trustee.

The impugned codicil purported to replace the executors named in the will with the respondent as sole executor and trustee.

The court considered whether the codicil had been properly executed and whether suspicious circumstances existed surrounding its preparation.

Applying the principles from Vout v. Hay, the court held that the absence of affidavits of execution and inconsistencies in the respondent’s conduct raised significant suspicious circumstances that were not explained.

The court therefore concluded the codicil was invalid and granted further relief removing the respondent from any role in administering the estate.

The applicants, joint tenants of a residential property, sought an order under the Partition Act authorizing the sale of the property and division of the proceeds.

The respondent, the former spouse or common-law partner of one applicant and residing in the property with their children, agreed to the sale but sought to have the entire proceeds held in trust pending anticipated claims relating to family property, businesses, and support.

The court held that the respondent had not commenced any proceedings asserting such claims and therefore had no basis for pre-judgment or pre-litigation security against the other applicant’s share of the proceeds.

The court authorized the sale of the property and ordered that only the applicant spouse’s half of the proceeds be held in trust, with the co-owner sibling free to receive her share.

The balance of the application relating to financial claims between the spouses was converted to an action.

A former contractor sought payment of unpaid commissions and bonuses allegedly owed under a consulting agreement containing an entire agreement clause requiring written amendments.

The defendant employer argued that the parties had subsequently altered their compensation structure through conduct and oral arrangements.

The court held that the parties had mutually abandoned key compensation provisions of the written agreement and implemented a different structure through invoices and payments over time.

The plaintiff knowingly waived his contractual rights and could not revert to the original terms after accepting the revised arrangement.

The action for unpaid compensation was dismissed and the defendant’s counterclaim for solicitation was also dismissed for lack of proof.