SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF TAFFY BOSADA, LATE OF THE CITY OF OTTAWA, IN THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF OTTAWA-CARLETON, ESQUIRE
AND IN THE MATTER OF LOTTIE BOSADA, LATE OF THE SAME PLACE, HIS WIFE
RE:
Vivian Assaf, Applicant
AND
Edward Bosada, Richard Bosada, Naomi Tsuji (Estate Trustee without a will of the Estate of Robert Bosada, deceased), All as Estate Trustees of the estate of Taffy Bosada, Deceased, and the Estate of Lottie Bosada, deceased, and in their personal capacities; and Gloria Haddad and Joan Kouri, Respondents (moving parties Edward Bosada, Richard Bosada, Gloria Haddad and Joan Kouri)
BEFORE: HACKLAND J.
COUNSEL: No one appearing, for the Applicant
Leonard Max Q.C., for the Respondents
HEARD: November 27, 2014 (at Ottawa)
ENDORSEMENT
1This estate proceeding began in 2003 with minimal progress since that time. It concerns the estates of the late Taffy Bosada (deceased August 3, 1974) and his wife Lottie (deceased Aug 27, 1980). The applicant, Vivian Assaf was the daughter of the late Mr. and Mrs. Bosada and she passed away in October 2008, and the litigation is now controlled by her son William Assaf. The moving parties are Mr. and Mrs. Bosada’s other children Richard (age 71), Edward (age 85), Gloria (age 88), and Joan (age 79) and the Estate of the late Robert Bosada, who died in September 2004. The moving parties are asking that the application be dismissed and that, in any event, the funds currently in court be paid out to them in equal shares as directed in Taffy Bosada’s will.
2The amount standing in court to the credit of this proceeding is approximately $371,049 as of January 8, 2015. This represents the entire assets of Taffy Bosada’s estate, being the net proceeds from the sale of the late Mr. Bosada’s home in Ottawa. The share of the estate to which the applicant, Vivian Assaf was entitled, was previously paid out to her pursuant to the Order of Sheffield J. dated December 9, 2011.
3The applicant, when the proceeding was commenced 11 years ago, raised certain complaints about the administration of her parents’ estate by her brothers, particularly that brother Ed had been allowed to remain in the home beyond the eight years contemplated in the will and there were claims for an accounting etc. These claims do not appear to be of any real significance and have not been effectively pursued by the late applicant and her son, Mr. Assaf, over these many years. There have been repeated adjournment requests and notwithstanding that the motion was to proceed today on a peremptory basis, Mr. Assaf faxed into the trial coordination’s office, a medical note saying “due to medical reasons, William is not fit for trial for the next 2-4 weeks.” No materials were filed in advance of the motion by Mr. Assaf.
4I am concerned that this application is not being seriously pursued and has become an abuse of process on the applicant’s part. The beneficiaries of this estate are quite elderly and there is urgency in having them receive the bequests to which they are entitled.
5The Court’s attention has been brought to the order of Morgan J. of this Court, dated March 6, 2013 in Toronto action CV-11-437021, in which William Assaf has been declared a vexatious litigant and prohibited from instituting or continuing any proceeding in Ontario without leave of the Court.
6In the circumstance, I am prepared to authorize an appropriate order directing the Accountant of the Superior Court of Justice to pay out the full proceeds of the estate to the beneficiaries so entitled. If the funds are to be paid in trust to the moving parties’ counsel, Leonard Max Q.C., I will require appropriate, signed directions from the beneficiaries in this regard.
7Furthermore, the applicant, will be permitted a period of 90 days from this order to seek an order from this Court to allow this proceeding to continue. Failing which, it may be dismissed by ex parte motion in writing by any of the respondents. Any such order permitting the application to proceed will be based on the Court being satisfied that the applicant’s (Mr. Assaf’s) claims are not vexatious; they are outlined in the form of sworn affidavit material in compliance with the Rules of Court Procedure and Mr. Assaf is represented by counsel.
8The moving parties’ counsel on this motion, Mr. Max, is to submit an order, in draft form, for my approval. Mr Assaf’s concurrence to the form and content of the order is dispensed with.
9Order accordingly.
Mr. Justice Charles T. Hackland
Released: January 23, 2015
CITATION: Assaf v. Bosada, 2015 ONSC 522
COURT FILE NO.: 03-CV-26212
DATE: 2015/01/23
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
IN THE MATTER of the estate of Taffy Bosada, late of the City of Ottawa, in the judicial district of Ottawa-Carleton, Esquire
AND IN THE MATTER of Lottie Bosada, late of the same place, his wife
BETWEEN:
Vivian Assaf Applicant
-and-
Edward Bosada, Richard Bosada, Naomi Tsuji (Estate Trustee without a will of the Estate of Robert Bosada, deceased), All as Estate Trustees of the estate of Taffy Bosada, Deceased, and the Estate of Lottie Bosada, deceased, and in their personal capacities; and Gloria Haddad and Joan Kouri
Respondents (moving parties Edward Bosada, Richard Bosada, Gloria Haddad and Joan Kouri)
Endorsement
HACKLAND J.
Released: January 23, 2015