Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

CITATION: Chaplin v. Chaplin, 2016 ONSC 7839

COURT FILE NO.: ES-203-16

DATE: 2016/12/14

In the Estate of James Dhu Chaplin, Deceased

RE: Daisy Mae Chaplin, personally and as an Estate Trustee of James Dhu Chaplin, Applicant (Responding Party)

AND:

Richard Robert Gordon Chaplin personally and as an Estate Trustee for the Estate of James Dhu Chaplin, Helen Elizabeth Anne Chaplin personally and as an Estate Trustee for the Estate of James Dhu Chaplin, Julia Diana Chaplin, Jan Chaplin, The Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, J. Pierce Bunting as a Trustee of James Dhu Chaplin Alter Ego Trust, John A. Pollock as a Trustee of the James Dhu Chaplin Alter Ego Trust and George A. Wilson as a Trustee of the James Dhu Chaplin Alter Ego Trust, Respondents (Moving Parties)

BEFORE: The Honourable Justice James W. Sloan

COUNSEL: James H. Bennett - Counsel, for the Applicant Kelly A. Charlebois & Lisa M. Filgiano - Counsel, for the Respondent Chaplin Children

HEARD: October 18, 2016

Costs ENDORSEMENT

[1] Like most family litigation this matter should have been resolved without having to resort to the courts.

[2] The positions taken by both parties seem to have offered limited flexibility.

[3] Unfortunately there were no offers to settle, which would have been helpful to assist the Court to determine each party’s reasonableness.

[4] Given the unfortunate animosity between the parties, the position to have Rick and Elizabeth appointed as estate trustee during litigation, even if the fallback position was for a true neutral trustee (but only if they weren’t successful in having the court agree with the request) meant there was going to be a hearing.

[5] The children’s right to receive records, seemed to be a minor issue at the hearing.

[6] Daisy’s position that there should be a corporate trustee also meant there was going to be a hearing.

[7] It seems to the court, that the stumbling block in having this matter resolved on a more amicable basis was that the parties were unable to allay Daisy’s fears, that going forward she may not have quiet enjoyment of the Longford property.

[8] Since success was divided I decline to order costs to either party.

[9] Hopefully if/when the need arises in the future for the parties to seek a court determination of an issue they will:

a) set out in detail the issue or issues to be resolved,

b) set out all possible solutions which may resolve the impasse,

c) negotiate/mediate with each other, and

d) if not resolved, send clear written offers to settle each issue before ramping up the time and cost to prepare documentation for and appear in court.

Justice James W. Sloan

Date: December 14, 2016