Ronald Moldaver

The applicant brought a motion seeking declarations that his 99-year-old mother was incapable of managing property and instructing counsel, and seeking the appointment of a litigation guardian and guardian of property.

The court reviewed competing capacity assessments and preferred the assessment finding incapacity, noting the mother's confusion and inability to understand the litigation.

The court appointed a neutral third-party lawyer as litigation guardian and guardian of property, passing over the mother's other son due to extreme family conflict and a prior finding of unconscionable procurement.

The court also ordered the mother's counsel to pay $3,500 in costs personally for taking unreasonable positions and failing to address his client's lack of capacity.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order for his 99-year-old mother to undergo a capacity assessment pursuant to s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act, and for the continuation of the Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL).

The applicant raised concerns about his mother's capacity to act as estate trustee following her examination out of court, where she provided non-responsive answers and demonstrated a lack of understanding of the estate's multi-million dollar debts.

The court found that the mother's capacity was in issue and ordered the assessment, balancing her privacy rights against the need to protect the vulnerable estate.

The court also granted a mandatory injunction to continue the ETDL's mandate to maintain the status quo pending the capacity assessment and the main application.

The plaintiffs brought two motions in a shareholder dispute.

The first motion sought to dismiss the action against certain bankrupt corporate defendants and their counterclaim, which was granted on consent with prejudice and without costs.

The second motion sought leave to amend the statement of claim against the remaining defendants to add an oppression remedy claim and further particulars.

The remaining defendants opposed the amendments, arguing the oppression claim was untenable and that some claims were derivative in nature.

The court granted leave to amend, finding that the proposed amendments were not doomed to fail and that an oppression claim could co-exist with breach of contract and derivative claims.

The plaintiffs were awarded partial indemnity costs of $10,000.

The plaintiffs, former co-owners of a property, sued the defendants, real estate appraisers, for negligence and breach of contract arising from an appraisal report prepared for a prior arbitration.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the claims based on expert witness immunity.

The court granted the defendants' motions, finding that the appraiser acted as an expert witness in the arbitration and is therefore absolutely immune from civil suit by both the adverse party and his own client for his report and testimony.

The court also held that issue estoppel did not apply to bind the defendants to the arbitrator's findings, as they were not privies to the arbitration.

Following a complex estates trial involving claims and counterclaims among family members, the court determined the costs of the proceedings.

Finding no clear winner or loser, the court applied the modern approach to estates costs and ordered that the partial indemnity costs of the respondent sons and the estate of a deceased son be paid out of the father's estate, due to the public policy considerations engaged by the father's pre-death actions.

The court also ordered the estate to pay the reasonable preparation and attendance costs of non-party professional witnesses.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $244,556.99 for an application regarding ownership interests in a property, citing the respondent's litigation tactics and delayed production of documents.

The respondent argued for no costs due to divided success, as the applicant did not succeed in claiming a 100% interest or an order for sale.

The court awarded the applicant substantial indemnity costs, reduced by 50% to reflect partial success, fixing the costs at $110,050.65.

The applicant estate trustee sought a declaration of the deceased's 50% interest in a condominium property.

The property was originally held in joint tenancy by the deceased and his mother.

The court found that the joint tenancy was severed prior to the deceased's death through the mother's unilateral instructions to her lawyer to sever the tenancy and the deceased's use of his interest as security for a support order.

The court declared the mother's subsequent survivorship application void and ordered the title rectified to reflect a tenancy in common, but declined to order partition and sale while the mother still resided in the property.

Following a trial regarding a share valuation, the court issued an endorsement to finalize the purchase price and determine costs.

The purchase price was set at $1,000,806 based on the expert's revised valuation.

The applicants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, but the court awarded partial indemnity costs, finding the respondent's conduct prolonged proceedings but was not reprehensible.

Costs were fixed at $119,129.46, including expert disbursements.

The applicant sought an order declaring a photocopy of the deceased's will valid and appointing herself as the sole estate trustee, removing the respondent siblings due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The respondents consented to the validity of the will but opposed their removal as trustees.

The court found that while the parties disagreed on the valuation and handling of certain corporate preference shares, this disagreement did not amount to a conflict of interest or sufficient hostility to override the testator's choice of trustees.

The application to remove the respondents was dismissed, and all three siblings were appointed as joint estate trustees.

The appellant appealed a decision of a Master who declined to proceed with a reference related to a judgment for partition and sale of several apartment properties.

After obtaining the judgment, the appellant privately sold its minority interest to the majority owner outside the reference process and removed the instrument registering the judgment for sale.

The appellant later sought to continue the reference solely to pursue an accounting against the property manager for alleged overcharged management fees.

The court held that the reference was governed by the judgment for sale and that the accounting was merely ancillary to the sale process.

Because the appellant’s private transaction rendered the judgment for sale moot, the Master correctly found that she lacked jurisdiction to continue the reference.

The appeal was dismissed.