Rob Levesque

This application sought the court's opinion and direction on the interpretation of a deceased's handwritten will.

The primary issues were whether a residual gift to the testator's sons was conditional on the testator and his wife dying during a specific trip, and the effect of a subsequent clause regarding the distribution of cash assets and memorabilia.

The court applied the "armchair rule" to ascertain the testator's subjective intention, concluding that the residual gift was not conditional and that the subsequent clause was void for repugnancy as the estate had already been fully disposed of.

The applicants were successful in an application to determine entitlement to life insurance proceeds.

They sought costs of $26,568.93, relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle that they beat.

The respondents argued no costs should be payable because two of the applicants allegedly abandoned their claims.

The court rejected the respondents' argument, found the costs sought to be reasonable, and awarded the applicants their full costs of $26,568.93.

The applicant sought an order under s. 79 of the Substitute Decisions Act requiring a capacity assessment of an elderly parent and alternatively production of medical records and the drafting solicitor’s file relating to a power of attorney.

The proceeding arose in the context of a guardianship application and concerns regarding dementia and Parkinson’s disease.

The court held that although a guardianship proceeding was pending, the evidentiary record did not establish reasonable grounds to believe the individual was incapable.

Medical correspondence confirmed diagnoses but did not address the degree of incapacity.

Given the presumption of capacity and the absence of compelling evidence, the request for a court‑ordered assessment and related production was denied.

The applicant, the sole life beneficiary of a Henson trust established by his mother's will, applied to declare the gift over of the trust residue void for uncertainty and to terminate the trust under the rule in Saunders v. Vautier.

The respondent estate trustee opposed the application and sought a capacity assessment of the applicant.

The court held that the gift over to 'worthy individuals' was void for uncertainty, but found that the resulting intestacy would not take effect until after the applicant's death.

Consequently, the applicant could not terminate the trust as he did not hold the full beneficial interest.

The court also declined to order a capacity assessment, finding no jurisdiction under the Courts of Justice Act in these circumstances.