Romeo D'Ambrosio

This appeal concerned the validity of codicils to a will and the application of the Limitations Act, 2002, to an application seeking purely declaratory relief.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision that an application for a declaration on the validity of codicils, without seeking consequential relief, is not subject to a limitation period under s. 16(1)(a) of the Act.

The court also affirmed the finding that the codicils were invalid due to insufficient evidence of proper execution and suspicious circumstances, and that summary judgment was appropriate.

The children of Stanislaw and Jadwiga Wroblewski disputed the validity of codicils to their parents' wills, which purported to gift properties to Krystyna Romoli.

Helen Piekut, an applicant, sought a declaration on the codicils' validity.

Krystyna Romoli moved for summary judgment to dismiss Helen's application as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, while Helen cross-moved for summary judgment to declare the codicils invalid.

The court dismissed Krystyna's motion, finding Helen's application for declaratory relief was not statute-barred.

The court granted Helen's cross-motion, declaring the codicils invalid due to insufficient evidence of due execution, suspicious circumstances surrounding their preparation by Krystyna, and doubts about the testator's capacity.

The applicants, acting as attorneys for Malzina Lozzi, sought an order to transfer title of a property from the respondent, who held it as a bare trustee, back to Malzina.

The respondent, also an attorney for Malzina, opposed the transfer, citing Malzina's original intention for estate tax planning and concerns about the applicants.

The court dismissed the application, finding that Malzina's intention for the respondent to remain the bare trustee was clear and that the applicants failed to demonstrate that transferring the property back was in Malzina's best interest.

The applicant sought an order invalidating an alleged holographic will made in Italy and declaring an earlier Ontario will to be the deceased's last valid will.

The court held that Ontario had jurisdiction under the real and substantial connection framework, relying on Rules 17.02(b) and 17.02(c), the deceased's Ontario domicile, Ontario bank accounts, and the respondent's assertion of rights against those Ontario assets.

Applying Ontario succession law, the court found the alleged 2014 will was not written or made by the deceased and was invalid.

The 1994 will was declared valid, and full indemnity costs were awarded against the respondent, with indemnification also available from the estate.