Doris Eileen Webb v. The Estate of Lyle Belway

COURT FILE NO.: CV 18-48

DATE: 20190802

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Doris Eileen Webb, Applicant

AND:

The Estate of Lyle Belway, Respondent

BEFORE: Justice Hélène Desormeau

COUNSEL: Mally McGregor, Counsel for the Applicant

Kathleen McDormand, Counsel for the Respondent

HEARD: June 20, 2019

amended REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

[1] After approximately 26 years of residing with Doris Eileen Webb, Lyle Belway dies, intestate, at 82 years of age. Mr. Belway’s daughter, Rachel Belway, is the heir at law for the entire $2,851,125.77 estate (notional value), subject to the dependent’s support claim brought by Ms. Webb.

[2] Ms. Belway concedes that Ms. Webb was her father’s common law spouse for the purpose of the dependent support.

[3] The issues in question are:

a. Has Ms. Webb received sufficient support from the estate, given her transfers from Mr. Belway’s accounts and investments to herself, while acting as his Power of Attorney?

b. If not, what further support, or property, should Ms. Webb receive?

Issue 1: Has Ms. Webb received sufficient support from the estate, given her transfers from Mr. Belway’s accounts and investments to herself, while acting as his Power of Attorney?

[4] Ms. Webb’s position is that she is entitled to one half of the estate, quantified at approximately $1,425,562.88, this amount being sufficient to satisfy her future needs and Mr. Belway’s legal and moral obligations toward her. She requests an absolute transfer of the farm house property, valued at approximately $580,000.00, an order that she keep all funds received to date of approximately $570,455.75 and an additional cash payment of $275,107.14. Ms. Webb’s proposed distribution would leave Ms. Belway with $1,425,562.88: $950,000.00 worth of real estate, $234,786.73 received to date, and the balance of the assets.

[5] Ms. Belway argues that due to Ms. Webb’s egregious behaviour, set out in greater detail below, Ms. Webb should receive no further assets, be it either money or property, from the estate.

[6] Prior to his meeting Ms. Webb, Mr. Belway owned three parcels of land and had accumulated the bulk of his wealth. Mr. Belway was a private and frugal man, who enjoyed his time on the farm. His farm was his life. There is no dispute regarding the value of the farm properties, or Mr. Belway’s assets. I accept the figures advanced by the parties, and as supported in the evidence.

[7] On February 5, 2016, Mr. Belway signs both a Power of Attorney for Property and a Power of Attorney for Personal Care (“POA’s”), in favour of Ms. Webb. These POA’s were witnessed by Gerald Boyce and Lorna Boyce on that same day. On March 10, 2016, Mr. Belway signs a Power of Attorney (Personal Trading Authorization) for Scotia Securities in favour of Ms. Webb, witnessed by Nancy Miller McKenzie and Diane Langon. I find all of the POA’s to be valid documents.

[8] On or about April 30, 2017, Mr. Belway suffers a cerebrovascular accident (“stroke”). He dies on October 21, 2017. From April 30, 2017 until October 21, 2017, Mr. Belway was in the hospital and in long-term care. Ms. Webb also assisted in in his care until his death.

[9] Almost immediately following the stroke, Mr. Belway suffers some cognitive decline and impairment. As of May 30, 2017, due to Mr. Belway’s medical issues, Dr. Halliday indicates that Mr. Belway can no longer manage his finances and property. On June 2, 2017, Mr. Belway is found to be incapable following a capacity evaluation by Brandi McKinnon, a registered nurse and care coordinator with the Champlain Local Health Integration Network (formerly Community Care Access Centre).

[10] Additional reports and observations are noted throughout the pleadings, including an independent capacity assessment dated June 26, 2017 by Dr. Sarazin, confirming Mr. Belway is incapable of managing his personal property and personal care.

[11] During Mr. Belway’s cognitive decline and impairment, Ms. Webb, acting as Power of Attorney for Property for Mr. Belway, effectively transfers $570,455.76 from Mr. Belway’s accounts and investments, either directly or indirectly, for her own benefit.

(a) Hearsay

[12] For reasons that follow, I place no reliance on the hearsay statements by Mr. Hamilton and the hospital staff, contained in Ms. Belway’s affidavit commissioned March 19, 2019.

[13] No satisfactory reason is provided necessitating hearsay statements purportedly made by Roger Hamilton, who resides in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. I therefore do not find the test for necessity is made out with regard to his statements.

[14] Ms. Belway also wishes to rely on statements by “hospital staff”. The particular source of the alleged statements is not identified, nor does Ms. Belway indicate she believes the information to be true. As such, I find these statements to be neither necessary, nor reliable.

[15] I also place very little weight on the hearsay statements of Ms. Ena Belway, contained in Ms. Shirley Gobeil-Gravelle’s affidavit commissioned March 13, 2019, regarding the cleanliness of Mr. Belway’s home while he was with Ms. Webb. I find this to be unhelpful opinion evidence.

(b) The law

[16] Where a person dies without making adequate support provisions for a dependant, the court may award dependent support relief if it considers it appropriate to do so. (Section 58 Succession Law Reform Act (“SLRA”))

[17] Section 62 SLRA sets out a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that the court must consider in determining the amount and duration, if any, of support.

[18] In addition to section 62 SLRA, the court must consider not only a needs-based or economic analysis, but also consider the moral or ethical obligations of the deceased with regard to all dependents. The moral obligation stems from society’s expectations of what a judicious person would do in the circumstances: See Cummings v. Cummings, 2004 CanLII 9339 (ON CA), 2004 CarswellOnt 99, Ontario Court of Appeal, at paras. 37 and 50; Tataryn v Tataryn Estate, [1994] SCR 807 at para. 37.

[19] Here, Ms. Webb is the only dependent advancing a claim. Ms. Belway concedes for the purpose of dependent’s support relief that Ms. Webb was a spouse. The facts in the case also support a finding being made to this effect. Ms. Belway also concedes that Ms. Webb should keep the assets already received by her, subject to adjustments to properly account for her expenditures during the period she acted as Mr. Belway’s Power of Attorney. However, Ms. Belway’s position is that Ms. Webb should receive no further assets from the estate.

[20] Mr. Belway and Ms. Webb met and started to reside together on October 21, 1991. How they met, and the nature of their relationship is contested. Ms. Belway believes her father hired Ms. Webb to be his housekeeper. Ms. Webb suggests they met based on a Lonely-Hearts column. During the course of litigation, Ms. Webb admits she destroyed the advertisement she placed in the farming publication which had led to the parties meeting. I draw a negative inference based on Ms. Webb’s destruction of the advertisement. I find for a fact that Mr. Belway initially hired Ms. Webb to be his housekeeper.

[21] However, as it often happens, the relationship evolved. The evidence shows from at least 1999, Mr. Belway and Ms. Webb filed their Income Tax Returns declaring themselves to be common law spouses of each other. Their neighbours and friends, Gerald Boyce, George Tibben and William Armstrong all state in their affidavits that Mr. Belway and Ms. Webb presented themselves as a couple. I prefer their sworn evidence over the notes from Dr. Steele, wherein Mr. Belway calls Ms. Webb his housekeeper. Regardless if it was 26 or 18 years that they were together, I find it was a long term relationship that lasted until Mr. Belway’s death. Throughout their time together, Ms. Webb was Mr. Belway’s only dependent and the closest family member. There is however no evidence of any agreements between the parties. (s.62(f, m, r) SLRA)

[22] Ms. Webb is now 73 years of age, and has not had a job outside of the farm since 1991. She lives independently at this time. There is no evidence that Ms. Webb has any physical or mental health issues. She is not employed. She is Mr. Belway’s only dependent. Ms. Webb has no dependents of her own. (s.62(c, d, k, o) SLRA)

[23] During their relationship, Ms. Webb initially received $250.00 per month for wages, then eventually $300 per month, minus the cost of any of her long distance telephone charges. This continued to occur even after filing their Income Tax Returns as a common law couple. Ms. Webb never paid rent to Mr. Belway. From the wages received, as well as her Canada Pension Plan (“CPP”) and Old Age Security (“OAS”), Ms. Webb paid for food and clothing for the couple, veterinarian bills and pet food for their cats and dogs, some maintenance and repairs to the farm house, purchasing some small farm tools, as well as purchasing some home related appliances such as a propane cook stove, washing machine, etc. Similar purchases were also made by Mr. Belway. Mr. Belway also paid for the oil/propane, hydroelectricity, a new furnace, most of the expenses associated with the farm, including large farm machinery, as well as the bulk of the household expenses not already referenced.

[24] Ms. Webb submits she greatly contributed to Mr. Belway’s welfare throughout the relationship. She worked on the farm, was involved in nearly all the household tasks, and supported him as he aged, both before and after his stroke. I accept that Ms. Webb was the primary person responsible for the household chores and upkeep, such as cooking, cleaning, laundry, etc. (s.62(h) SLRA)

[25] Ms. Webb and Mr. Belway each contributed services to the work on the farm. Ms. Webb was involved in the day to day workings of the farm. This is supported by the evidence from Gerald Boyce, George Tibben, and William Armstrong. Ms. Webb suggests that working on the farm was her full time job. The evidence persuades me that until approximately 2012, Mr. Belway was the primary person responsible for work on the farm. Mr. Belway was also actively involved in all farm tasks and physical labour until he suffered his stroke. Once Mr. Belway became older and his health deteriorated, Ms. Webb took on greater responsibilities for the farm. I am not persuaded that the farm work was Ms. Webb’s full time job until after 2012, when she took on a more active role. (s.62(h) SLRA)

[26] I accept that Ms. Webb’s modest financial contributions and work on the farm benefited Mr. Belway in that he did not have to hire additional labourers to complete the work already completed by Ms. Webb. This reduced the out of pocket costs to him. I equally accept that Mr. Belway did hire one or two seasonal labourers per season, and employed a farm manager. I find Ms. Webb was equally able to receive a financial benefit from her time with Mr. Belway, given her modest personal assets, her earning capacity and work experience with which she entered the relationship. (s.62(h, r) SLRA)

[27] Ms. Belway suggests any increase in Mr. Belway’s property cannot be presumed to be as a result of Ms. Webb’s efforts. It is Ms. Webb’s burden to establish an increase in wealth during the relationship. There is no doubt Mr. Belway had significant wealth and owned all of the property prior to the parties commencing their relationship. However, I am persuaded by the nature of her labour and efforts toward both the home and farm, as set out above, Ms. Webb made significant contributions, thus increasing Mr. Belway’s wealth. I accept that due to Ms. Webb’s assistance with both, Mr. Belway was able to remain on his farm into his 80’s. (s.62(i, j) SLRA)

[28] I find that Ms. Belway had regular, but infrequent, contact with her father, both by telephone and in person. This usually occurred on Sundays, when Ms. Webb was not present, and thus predominantly without Ms. Webb’s knowledge. On average, Ms. Belway saw her father in person approximately every two years, and spoke to him by telephone six to eight times per year. I accept that Mr. Belway sought advice from his daughter in matters relating to his health. Mr. Belway did not financially contribute to Ms. Belway’s education – he was not a charitable or giving person. Ms. Belway succeeded in her education and career on her own two feet, independent of her father.

[29] I find that Mr. Belway kept from his daughter the nature of his relationship with Ms. Webb. Despite what he told Ms. Belway about Ms. Webb’s involvement in the farm, I am persuaded, based on the totality of the evidence, in particular the affidavit evidence of friends and neighbours, that Ms. Webb’s role was both inside the home as well as working on the farm.

[30] Ms. Webb has admittedly received approximately $570,455.76 from Mr. Belway’s funds to date. These monies were as a result of transfers to herself, beneficiary designations, or by other means, while she was acting as Mr. Belway’s POA. Ms. Webb has also used a further $20,452.00 of Mr. Belway’s funds to pay for her own legal fees, and another $33,437.00 to pay for home renovations, as well as other cash withdrawals which are not yet accounted. (s.62(a, n) SLRA)

[31] The monies from the estate mentioned above will generate investment income. Additionally, Ms. Webb receives CPP and OAS, which in 2016, totalled $14,413.98. In that same year, she also received $3,600.00 from farm income, reflective of $300.00 per month in wages. (s.62(a) SLRA)

[32] Ms. Webb admits that she and Mr. Belway did not live in luxury. They resided in modest circumstances at the farm house, which had numerous structural problems. (s.62(e) SLRA)

[33] If permitted to keep approximate $570,455.76 received through the estate to date, Ms. Webb will have those monies as investment income, as well as her CPP and OAS, as means to support herself. She appears to have no other assets. Prior to Mr. Belway’s illness, Ms. Webb had no savings. (s.62(a,b, n) SLRA)

[34] Ms. Webb has resided on the farm property, rent free, since Mr. Belway’s death. She has however maintained the property, including paying the property taxes, utilities and maintenance since that time. The estate never tried evict or remove Ms. Webb from the property, and even offered that she reside in the farm house rent free until she is no longer able to live on her own or is no longer capable of living there. Ms. Webb rejects the offer as she wishes to own the property outright. (s.62(a) SLRA)

[35] As set out above, the court needs to conduct more than a simple needs-based analysis to determine what Ms. Webb should receive as the proper amount of support. (See Cummings, supra, and Perilli v. Foley Estate, 2006 CarswellOnt 719, at para. 56)

[36] Over and above the additional moral obligations of the deceased toward the dependent, the court must also consider the moral obligations of the deceased toward his independent child. Further, the court must also considering the deceased’s intentions, if available. (See Perilli, supra, at paras. 59 and 60)

[37] As stated in Perilli, “the court must attempt to balance the competing claims to the estate by taking into account the size of the estate, the strength of the claims, and the intentions of the deceased in order to arrive at a judicious distribution of the estate. This exercise may involve the prioritization of the competing claims.” (Perilli v. Foley Estate, supra, at para. 61) Here, the deceased has a legal obligation to support Ms. Webb, and a moral obligation to both Ms. Webb and Ms. Belway.

[38] Regarding Mr. Belway’s intentions, sometime soon after Ms. Ena Belway’s death (Mr. Belway’s mother) in 2005, Mr. Belway expressed to Ms. Gobeil-Gravelle that he wished his grandsons inherit the farm property. However, he never made any provisions for this wish. Given the comment was approximately 12 years prior to his death, and that he not make a will, I find that Mr. Belway’s wishes concerning the distribution of the estate are unexpressed.

(c) Conduct

[39] Section 62(r) SLRA specifically addresses the conduct of the dependent if they are a spouse. The court is to consider whether the course of conduct by the spouse during the deceased’s lifetime is so unconscionable as to constitute an obvious and gross repudiation of the relationship.

[40] Ms. Belway asks the court to consider Ms. Webb’s egregious conduct, including misappropriating hundreds of thousands of dollars from Mr. Belway while acting as his attorney for property at a time when she knew him to be hospitalized and incapable, as well as Ms. Webb’s active steps to isolate Mr. Belway from his daughter and family members during the last months of his life.

[41] Ms. Webb admits to a very brief period time where she isolated Ms. Belway from her father following his stroke. However, she submits that this should not be used to discount her entitlement as it has little to no relevance in the big picture of their relationship.

[42] The evidence shows that Ms. Webb prohibited Ms. Belway and family members from visiting Mr. Belway during the last months of his life, going so far as to instruct the caregivers that the police should be called should Ms. Belway or two other family members attempt to see Mr. Belway. Ms. Webb did not call Ms. Belway to advise her of her father having suffered a stroke, having been hospitalized, or going through surgery. In fact, Ms. Webb admittedly refused to give Mr. Hamilton a telephone number with which to reach Ms. Belway.

[43] There was discord between Ms. Webb and Ms. Belway, particularly when Ms. Belway attended the hospital or nursing home to see her father. I am not however persuaded that Ms. Belway’s motives were financial driven, despite Ms. Webb’s assertions to the contrary.

[44] Based on the evidence, I find that Ms. Webb was sometimes demanding, rude or hostile when communicating with Mr. Belway’s doctors prior to his death. Despite the doctor’s notes however, I am not persuaded that Ms. Webb was abusive in her control over Mr. Belway. Further, I am not persuaded that conduct in this regard diminishes the spousal relationship between her and Mr. Belway.

[45] Contrary to Ms. Webb’s affidavit of April 26, 2018 regarding the transfer of $380,000.00 (the amount set out in her affidavit) to herself following Mr. Belway’s stroke, Ms. Webb now admits that the transfers were not pursuant to Mr. Belway’s instructions. Ms. Webb also admits to the additional assets taken, as well as paying for household improvements / repairs at the farm house, as Mr. Belway’s POA, knowing he was not well enough to return home.

[46] I find Ms. Webb’s conduct following Mr. Belway’s stroke problematic. Nevertheless, Ms. Webb takes responsibility for her questionable actions. In these circumstances, her explanations regarding her actions are plausible, including her belief that Ms. Belway and her father rarely saw each other or spoke to each other.

[47] All things considered, I find Ms. Webb’s actions were improper. However, as Power of Attorney, Ms. Webb had unrestricted access to all of Mr. Belway’s assets. She could have transferred the entire estate to herself. She did not do this. Through self-help, Ms. Webb took approximately one-fifth of the value of the estate.

[48] I have considered the allegations contained in Ms. Shirley Gobeil-Gravelle’s affidavit, where Ms. Webb would have threatened to burn down the farm house should Mr. Belway ever try to force her out. Mr. Belway confided this information to Ms. Gobeil- Gravelle in or around 2004. Mr. Belway meanwhile, in or around 2011, was charged with domestic violence against Ms. Webb. Neither of the alleged incidents led to the termination their spousal relationship. Therefore, I am not persuaded that they are determinative in this application.

[49] Ultimately, I am not persuaded that Ms. Webb’s actions were egregious or malicious, nor do I find her actions to have been so unconscionable as to constitute an obvious and gross repudiation of the relationship.

[50] Moreover, after being a common law couple for at least 18 years, though Ms. Webb’s actions are problematic, I do not find they negate her moral and economic claims against the estate.

(d) Expert evidence

[51] Both parties rely upon actuarial reports and supplementary actuarial reports to estimate Ms. Webb’s present value of future living expenses. Ms. Webb relies on the report prepared by Maryse Larouche of GML Actuaries. Ms. Belway relies on the reports prepared by Mr. Ian Wollach and Ellen Drevnig of RSM Canada Consulting LP. The initial reports submitted by both parties are subject to some flaws which are addressed in their respective supplementary reports (ie: not accounting for monies received or relying overestimating Ms. Webb’s predicted source of income).

[52] The GML supplemental report (“GML report”) accounts for Ms. Webb having received $430,000.00 from the estate. The supplemental RSM report (“RSM report”) properly accounts for Ms. Webb’s predicted income. Both reports provide different scenarios accounting for Ms. Webb residing in a retirement residence at ages 75, 80, or 85. The GML report assumes Ms. Webb would either reside in a one bedroom apartment, or a one bedroom plus kitchenette.

[53] I start with the knowledge that Ms. Webb has actually received $570,455.75, rather than $430,000.00, from the estate. This does not account for other monies received discussed above (ie: legal fees, ATM withdrawals, etc.). Adjusting the amount received to $570,455.75, the GML report indicates a shortfall (or surplus) of future income in the range of :

a. Garden Villa: $113,536.00 (age 75), $45,984.00 (age 80), or a surplus of $10,852.00 (age 85).

b. Chartwell: $123,580.00 (age 75), $52,582.00 (age 80), or a surplus of $7,153.75 (age 85).

[54] The RSM report accounts for Ms. Webb having received $520,427.00, rather than the $570,455.75 actually received (again, without accounting for legal fees, ATM, etc.) The RSM report provides for Ms. Webb moving into a nursing home at age 90, thus reducing living expenses. The report assumes Ms. Webb will occupy a deluxe studio apartment, or a large studio apartment until she moves into a retirement residence. With these factors considered, and adjusting for $570,455.75 actually received, the RSM report indicates the following:

a. Garden Villa (plus nursing home): a surplus of received future income of $73,436.00 (age 75), $83,557.00 (age 80), or $92,070.00 (age 85).

b. Chartwell (plus nursing home): a surplus of received future income of $69,886.00 (age 75), $80,455.00 (age 80), or $89,257.00 (age 85).

[55] Regardless if Ms. Webb were to reside in a deluxe studio unit or a one-bedroom apartment, Ms. Belway submits that Ms. Webb has already received sufficient assets from the estate to satisfy the estates legal and moral obligations and to comfortably provide for her needs for the rest of her life. Ms. Belway’s expert’s report suggests Ms. Webb has already received sufficient assets to provide for her future needs. (s.62(e) SLRA)

[56] The RSM report does not take into consideration the amount of expansive terrain and privacy to which Ms. Webb was accustomed. She resided on a farm, where she was surrounded by 125 acres of farmland (inclusive of both parcels of land), as well as being accompanied by her animals. Furthermore, this is not simply a needs based analysis, nor is the analysis limited to the bare essentials required to survive. (See Michael v. Thomas, 2018 ONSC 3125 at para. 15)

[57] Considering the length of the relationship and the size of the estate, I do not find it is reasonable to expect Ms. Webb to reside in a studio apartment, or to suggest she will reside in a nursing home at 90 years of age.

[58] The estate is suitably sizable to afford Ms. Webb with sufficient financial independence to permit her to maintain her dignity. In these circumstances, Ms. Webb’s financial independence is achieved in providing her the means to eventually reside in a one bedroom residence. Based on same, I accept the GML report, and find it is more likely than not that Ms. Webb will have a shortfall for the cost of her future living expenses if she were only to receive the assets already in her possession.

[59] Considering all of the circumstances, I find that Ms. Webb has met her onus, on a balance of probabilities, that the estate has not adequately provided for her. I am not persuaded that assets Ms. Webb has already received are sufficient to meet the estate’s obligations toward her.

Issue 2: If the estate has not adequately provided for the dependent, what further support, or property, should Ms. Webb receive?

[60] In making an order for dependent’s support, section 63 SLRA affords the court a broad discretion to impose conditions or restrictions as it considers appropriate, and structure the order as it deems just. These provisions include periodic or lump sum payments, possession or use of any specified property, transfer property whether absolutely, for life, or for term of years, etc.

[61] I commend the estate for permitting Ms. Webb to reside in farm house, rent free, pending disposition of the application.

[62] I recognize that quantifying Ms. Webb’s moral claim against the estate is a highly fact specific exercises. Here, there are sufficient assets in the estate to fully address the moral obligations of Mr. Belway toward both Ms. Webb and to Ms. Belway.

[63] I have considered the option of Ms. Webb receiving a life interest in the farm house property. However, based on the history between them, I find that that forcing an ongoing relationship between Ms. Webb and Ms. Belway will only result in conflict. I find it is more appropriate to provide a clean break for both Ms. Webb and Ms. Belway.

[64] I have considered the circumstances of this case, in particular Ms. Webb’s present assets and means, her age, her needs and potential needs, and the years of cohabitation with Mr. Belway. In the circumstances at hand, I am not prepared to place any burden on the state to support Ms. Webb.

[65] I am persuaded that a judicious spouse would have left Ms. Webb the farm house property, as well as adequate assets in order to live out the remainder of her days in relative comfort. I make this determination having considered the case law provided by both parties, and recognizing the differences between SLRA claims and Family Law claims. Further, the remedy of transferring the property is one of the permissible remedies found in section 63(2) (c) SLRA.

[66] In the circumstances, taking into account Mr. Belway’s legal obligations to Ms. Webb, and his moral obligations to both Ms. Webb and Ms. Belway, as well as the s. 62 SLRA factors, I find it is appropriate to assess Ms. Webb’s legal and moral claims against the estate in the amount of $1,425,562.88. Ms. Webb shall therefore receive the farm house property (south parcel), the monies already received by her, and $275,107.14, subject to the necessary adjustments set out below.

[67] The remainder of the estate, subject to the orders set out below, shall properly fulfil Mr. Belway’s moral obligations toward his daughter.

Disposition

[68] Based on all of the evidence before me, I find that Ms. Webb is entitled to the following as adequate support, and I make the following orders:

1. Subject to adjustments to properly account for her expenditures from April 30, 2017 to October 21, 2017, the assets already received by Ms. Webb, or which are in her possession, which have been quantified at $570,455.76, shall remain in her possession.

2. The $350,000.00 that is currently being held by Ms. Webb with Quadrus O’Farrell Financial Services shall not be dispersed until the accounting has been completed and the parties have consented to the accounting or as further determined by the court, if required.

3. The estate shall transfer into Ms. Webb’s sole name as the owner, ownership of 11130 Sandy Row, South Mountain Ontario K0E 1W0, Part Lot 14, Conc. 1 North Dundas (South Parcel) PIN 661080142– 55 acres, together with all of the contents of the house and outbuildings, crops, inventory and equipment and generally all personal property located thereon, free and clear of all encumbrances but otherwise “as is” with respect to title and “as is” with respect to state of the property both real and personal. This transfer shall be at the expense of the estate and shall be completed within 30 days of this Judgment. This sole ownership gives Ms. Webb unfettered sole control over her own living arrangements and any changes she may wish to make to the residence in the future.

4. If not already done, the estate shall transfer the 2002 Silverado truck to Ms. Webb. The Respondent shall provide a letter for Ms. Webb to the Ministry of Transportation confirming the transfer of the vehicle.

5. The estate shall pay to Ms. Webb a further sum of $275,107.14, minus adjustments for the ATM withdrawals, legal fees paid, donations, cost of renovations to the home, etc.

[69] A Judgment shall issue accordingly with regard to the orders set out herein.

[70] Ultimately, it is intended that Ms. Webb receive $570,455.76, plus the farm house property, plus $275,107.14, minus any disbursements or payments not accounted for in these numbers (such as those set out in paragraph 64-67 of the Respondent’s amended factum). Should the parties require further clarification regarding paragraph 5, above, a telephone conference may be arranged to discuss this issue.

[71] If the parties cannot otherwise agree on the issue of costs, they shall each provide brief written submissions of no more than 3 pages, plus bill of costs, offers to settle and case law. Ms. Webb has 30 days from the release of this Judgment. The Estate shall have 10 days thereafter to respond, and Ms. Webb has have a further 5 days after the response is served to reply, if so required.

Madam Justice Hélène C. Desormeau

Date: August 2, 2019

COURT FILE NO.: CV 18-48

DATE: 20190802

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Doris Eileen Webb

And

The Estate of Lyle Belway

amended REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Madam Justice Hélène C. Desormeau

Released: August 2, 2019