Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-18-1015 Date: 2024/01/25 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: Constance Violet Bell, Applicant – and – Claudette Randell, Respondent

Counsel: J. Chris Ireland, for the Applicant Karen A. Scherl, for the Respondent

Heard: November 29, 2023

The Honourable Justice A. D. Hilliard

Overview

[1] This is a motion brought by the Respondent, Claudette Randell. Ms. Randell seeks orders confirming her status as estate trustee and for the re-issuance of the Certificate of Appointment, an order removing the Certificate of Pending Litigation filed by Ms. Bell against the property owned by Ms. Erb on her death, an order directing that the Applicant bear responsibility for interest owing on specific legacies, and a request for damages, or, in the alternative, an order for directions.

[2] The Applicant, Constance Bell, argues that the issues should be determined after a trial and therefore this matter should not proceed in a summary fashion. Ms. Bell seeks an order directing that there be a trial in this matter to determine the validity of Ms. Erb’s last Will and Testament.

[3] For the reasons that follow, the Respondent’s motion for a summary ruling is granted.

Factual Background

[4] This Application involves a dispute over the validity of the Last Will and Testament dated June 22, 2016 (the 2016 Will) of the late Linda Elizabeth Erb (nee Pflug). The Respondent, Ms. Randell, is the named executrix and residual beneficiary in the 2016 Will. Neither Ms. Randell nor Ms. Bell are related to Ms. Erb by either blood or marriage.

[5] The Applicant is a long-time family friend of Ms. Erb. Ms. Bell’s parents were close friends with Ms. Erb and her husband. Ms. Bell referred to Ms. Erb during her life as “Aunt Betty”. Ms. Bell and Ms. Erb maintained regular contact and communication throughout Ms. Bell’s adult life.

[6] From in and around 2008, Ms. Bell understood that Ms. Erb had appointed her as her Power of Attorney for both property and personal care. Ms. Bell acknowledges that Ms. Erb did indicate that she had added Patricia Fitzpatrick as her Power of Attorney in addition to Ms. Bell sometime in 2012 or 2013. Although Ms. Bell concedes that she never actually saw the documents that purportedly appointed her Power of Attorney, Ms. Bell’s evidence is that she remained under the belief that she was either solely or jointly Ms. Erb’s Power of Attorney until just prior to Ms. Erb’s death in 2018.

[7] Ms. Randell first met Ms. Erb through the course of her employment as a personal support worker (PSW) in 2014. Ms. Randell was assigned to provide assistance to Ms. Erb in her home for one hour every Friday for a period of eight (8) weeks. Ms. Erb had diabetes which caused her some problems with mobility, specifically getting in and out of the bathtub.

[8] After the work assignment ended, Ms. Randell went to work for Ms. Erb in her personal capacity, continuing to assist her with personal care, as well as housekeeping and grocery shopping. This employment relationship was ongoing from approximately the fall of 2014 to November 2016.

[9] In and around May 30, 2016, Ms. Randell sent an email from her personal email account to Richard Cooper, Ms. Erb’s solicitor, with instructions to change Ms. Erb’s Will and Power of Attorney. The email indicated that anywhere that Patricia Fitzpatrick’s name appeared in Ms. Erb’s previous Will and Powers of Attorney, Ms. Randell’s name should be substituted. No other changes were to be made.

[10] On November 25, 2016, Ms. Randell moved into Ms. Erb’s residence. Ms. Randell had a bedroom on the main floor and shared all other areas of the house with Ms. Erb. Those living arrangements were in place until the date of Ms. Erb’s death.

[11] Throughout the course of her evolving relationship with Ms. Erb, Ms. Randell was a Registered Practical Nurse (RPN).

[12] Ms. Erb died in hospital in Kitchener on June 2, 2018 at the age of 76. She had no surviving spouse or children, either blood related or adopted.

[13] The 2016 Will set out the following legacy amounts:

1. Connie Bell (the Respondent) $5,000
2. Rachel Bell (the Respondent’s daughter) $5,000
3. Kitchener-Waterloo Humane Society $10,000
4. The War Amps $10,000
5. The Donkey Sanctuary of Canada $25,000

[14] A previous will executed by Ms. Erb on July 14, 2015 (the 2015 Will) had the same gifts but named Patricia Fitzpatrick as the executrix and residual beneficiary.

[15] Ms. Bell filed a Notice of Objection with the Court on June 27, 2018 alleging undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity as her reasons for objecting to the validity of the 2016 Will. The objection was filed without notice to Ms. Randell or her lawyer, Richard Cooper.

[16] On July 16, 2018, Mr. Richard Cooper’s law office filed a completed Application for Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee with a Will on behalf of Ms. Randell. That application was given a new court file number as Mr. Cooper was unaware of Ms. Bell’s objection and therefore did not notify court staff that there was another court file regarding the same will.

[17] On July 23, 2018, a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee with a Will was issued to Ms. Randell, the objection filed by Ms. Bell having been overlooked as it had a different court file number.

[18] On August 9 and 10, 2018, ex parte orders were granted to Ms. Bell revoking the Certificate of Appointment and permitting the Registrar to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) for registration against title to Ms. Erb’s residence.

[19] A CPL was registered against title to Ms. Erb’s residence on August 13, 2018 without notice to Ms. Randell.

[20] After having been notified of the Order revoking the Certificate of Appointment, Mr. Cooper on behalf of Ms. Randell voluntarily returned the issued Certificate back to the Court on August 23, 2018.

[21] An order for directions was made on September 26, 2019.

[22] Examinations of the two lawyers (Chelsea Lawson and Jessica Ennis) involved in the preparation and execution of the 2016 Will were conducted on December 11, 2019.

[23] Greg Boehm, Ms. Erb’s financial adviser, was examined as a non-party under oath on November 30, 2020.

[24] Ms. Randell was cross-examined by counsel for Ms. Bell over the course of two days – June 7 and July 6, 2021.

[25] Ms. Bell was cross-examined on December 1, 2021.

Issues

[26] The following are the issues to be determined:

1. Can this matter be dealt with in a summary fashion based on the written record? If not, should the court make an order for directions, including a trial on some or all of the issues?
2. Is the 2016 Will valid?
3. Should there be an order directing the CPL be discharged?
4. Should there be an order that Ms. Bell bear responsibility for the entirety of the interest accrued and payable on all the specific legacies listed in the 2016 Will?

Analysis

Summary Determination

[27] Ms. Bell contends that this is not an appropriate case for a summary determination. I disagree.

[28] Rule 75 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (RCP) governs contentious estate proceedings.

[29] Pursuant to RCP 75.08 where a claim is made against an estate, RCP 75.08(5) sets out that a trial “shall proceed in a summary manner unless the judge considers it appropriate to give directions as to issues, parties and pleadings.” RCP 75.06 provides for persons appearing to have a financial interest in an estate to apply or move for directions, including, at sub-paragraph (d), procedures for bringing the matter before the court in a summary fashion.

[30] In this case, the parties have had the benefit of cross-examinations of one another and of other deponents involved with Ms. Erb in and around the time of the execution of the 2016 Will. Portions of the transcripts of those examinations have been filed with the Court and referred to and relied upon by counsel during argument.

[31] Neither of the lawyers involved in the preparation and execution of the 2016 Will have an independent recollection of drafting the Will nor meeting with Ms. Erb. Their evidence is before the Court and will not be expanded upon or further clarified by requiring either to attend and provide evidence at a trial.

[32] I must also consider section 13 of the Evidence Act in making my determination as to whether a summary determination is appropriate:

In an action by or against the heirs, next of kin, executors, administrators or assigns of a deceased person, an opposite or interested party shall not obtain a verdict, judgment or decision on his or her own evidence in respect of any matter occurring before the death of the deceased person, unless such evidence is corroborated by some other material evidence.

[33] This section applies equally to both Ms. Bell and Ms. Randell. As noted by Penny J. referencing Smith Estate v Rotstein, “neither [party] can succeed in their attempt to validate or invalidate their mother’s 2004 Wills and Codicil by virtue of their own, uncorroborated evidence.” [1] There must be corroboration of material facts alleged by both Ms. Bell and Ms. Randell regarding a matter that occurred prior to the death of Ms. Erb.

[34] As I will expand upon in my analysis as to the issues raised by Ms. Bell in support of her argument that the will should be invalidated, there is evidence that corroborates Ms. Randell’s position but none that corroborates Ms. Bell’s. It is not enough for Ms. Bell to raise the possibility of suspicious circumstances. There is no indication that Ms. Bell will lead additional evidence at trial that corroborates her allegations. Furthermore, there is nothing before me to suggest that corroborative evidence even exists.

[35] I have also considered RCP 1.04(1) which directs that the rules are to be “liberally construed to secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every civil proceeding on its merits.” This proceeding has been ongoing since 2019 and Ms. Erb’s estate has been held in abeyance that entire time. There are beneficiaries other than Ms. Randell and Ms. Bell whose gifts have not been disbursed as a result of this litigation. A trial would unnecessarily further prolong these proceedings and create further expense for the parties.

[36] Overall, I am satisfied that I can determine the issues on the evidence before me without the need for a full trial to be conducted. I am not satisfied that the evidentiary record will be amplified in any way by a trial at which oral evidence is called.

Validity of the 2016 Will

[37] The person propounding a Will bears the legal burden with respect to due execution, knowledge and approval, and testamentary capacity, which burden is aided by a rebuttable presumption. That presumption can be rebutted by evidence being led as to suspicious circumstances. [2]

[38] Suspicious circumstances can be raised in one of three ways:

1. Circumstances surrounding the preparation of the will;
2. Circumstances tending to call into question the capacity of the testator; or
3. Circumstances tending to show that the free will of the testator was overborne by acts of coercion or fraud.

Suspicious Preparation:

[39] Ms. Bell argues that the manner in which the instructions to change Ms. Erb’s 2015 Will were sent to the lawyer constitutes suspicious circumstances that displace the presumption of validity.

[40] Ms. Randell concedes that sending the email to Mr. Cooper’s office with instructions to change Ms. Erb’s Will constitutes suspicious circumstances.

[41] Having conceded that there were suspicious circumstances surrounding the preparation of the 2016 Will, the onus then falls to Ms. Randell to demonstrate that the will was properly executed, the contents of the will were known and approved of by Ms. Erb, and that Ms. Erb had testamentary capacity at the time the will was signed.

[42] The 2016 Will is duly executed by Ms. Erb. There is no dispute that the signature on the document is Ms. Erb’s. The 2016 Will was properly witnessed and there is an affidavit of execution.

[43] The notes from the lawyer’s office who prepared the 2016 Will were disclosed to the parties and filed as part of the Respondent’s Amended Compendium and I have considered them. In those notes there is a printed copy of the email sent by Ms. Randell to Mr. Cooper with handwritten notes made thereon. There is a notation “Appt June 22/16 2:30 pm” and a circle around Ms. Erb’s phone number with “Call her” written beside the circled number. Also handwritten is the date “06/14/16” and “Take out Patricia Fitzpatrick in both her Will & POAs & replace with Claudette Randell” with the initials JR under that note.

[44] During her examinations, Jessica Peever, the lawyer who assisted in the preparation of the 2016 Will, indicated that some of the handwriting on the printed email was hers and some was that of her receptionist, Joanne Randall. Ms. Peever confirmed that the note indicating “Call her” was her handwriting, but she could not recall whether she herself called Ms. Erb or directed someone else to.

[45] Ms. Peever’s evidence was that although she had no specific recollection, the usual practise at the firm in 2016 was to meet with clients to receive Will instructions prior to a Will being drafted. In the case of Ms. Erb, Ms. Peever noted that as there had been a previous Will prepared, changing the Executrix and residual beneficiary would not have been much work. Ms. Peever could not recall if there was simply a telephone call to confirm Ms. Erb’s instructions or whether there was an in-person meeting prior to the new Will being drafted.

[46] Chelsea Lawson was another lawyer at Richard Cooper’s law office at the time the 2016 Will was executed and Ms. Lawson was a witness to the 2016 Will. Her evidence was that her usual practice is to review the contents of any document a client comes in to sign, indicating that she would have reviewed the changes to the Will that were made with Ms. Erb when she came in to sign. Ms. Lawson deposed during examinations that although she does not have a specific recollection of going through the contents of the revised Will with Ms. Erb prior to signing it was her practise to “always go through the Will with the client.”

[47] I accept that the lawyers followed their normal practice and procedure in relation to the preparation and execution of Ms. Erb’s will. I find that this evidence is sufficiently corroborative of Ms. Randell’s evidence that she was not directly involved in the preparation or execution of Ms. Erb’s Will such that the suspicious circumstances raised regarding the preparation of the 2016 Will are adequately addressed.

[48] The evidence of Ms. Peaver and Ms. Lawson corroborate Ms. Randell’s position that the 2016 Will was duly executed, and that Ms. Erb executed the Will knowing and approving of its contents.

[49] I find that the evidence as to the preparation and execution of the 2016 Will satisfies the legal burden on Ms. Randell to demonstrate due execution, knowledge and approval of Ms. Erb.

Capacity of the testator:

[50] Ms. Lawson’s evidence was that if she had concerns with respect to anything regarding a client she would have made a note. Ms. Lawson concluded that the absence of any notes in the file lead her to believe that she did not have any concerns about Ms. Erb at the time the 2016 Will was executed. She further deposed that the lack of notes allowed her to indicate with confidence that she had no concerns about whether Ms. Erb was mentally capable of making changes to her Will. Ms. Lawson further indicated that it is her practice to involve another lawyer in the firm when she has any concerns about a client’s capacity.

[51] Mr. Greg Boehm was Ms. Erb’s financial advisor from May 1990 to the date of her death. During the course of his business relationship with Ms. Erb, Mr. Boehm assisted with estate planning, insurance, investments, and taxes. Mr Boehm provided evidence supporting Ms. Randell’s assertion that Ms. Erb was of sound mind at the time of the execution of the 2016 Will. During his examinations, Mr. Boehm confirmed that during all of his meetings with Ms. Erb between January 1, 2016 and January 2, 2018 he considered Ms. Erb mentally capable of making her own decisions about her finances and assets. He confirmed that he considered Ms. Erb capable of understanding what financial assets she had and was able to appreciate the consequences of giving directions relating to estate planning.

[52] Mr. Boehm confirms that Ms. Erb independently advised him of that she was making changes to her Will and Power of Attorney sometime between January 1 and July 7, 2016, albeit not specifically what changes were made.

[53] The evidence of Mr. Boehm as to Ms. Erb’s capacity and mental state is to some extent confirmed by Ms. Bell’s own evidence wherein she indicates that she maintained regular contact with her “Aunt Betty” and observed her to be generally in good health when she visited with Ms. Erb.

[54] I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence before me to find that Ms. Erb had testamentary capacity at the time the 2016 Will was executed.

Undue influence / coercion:

[55] The other argument put forward by Ms. Bell is that Ms. Randell inappropriately and unduly influenced Ms. Erb to name Ms. Randell as her Executrix and residual beneficiary. Ms. Bell’s argument in this regard relies in large part on Ms. Randell’s obligations as a RPN, her relationship with Ms. Erb having commenced when Ms. Randell was employed as a PSW.

[56] It is insufficient for Ms. Bell to simply raise undue influence or coercion as a possibility. Ms. Bell bears the onus of demonstrating on the evidence that there was actual coercion or undue influence exerted by Ms. Randell on Ms. Erb. Any evidence of Ms. Bell on this issue must also be corroborated by some other material evidence as required by section 13 of the Evidence Act.

[57] I accept as a general proposition that there is a power imbalance in the nurse-patient relationship. That imbalance is explicitly recognized by the College of Nurses in its Practice Standard, which sets out the guidelines that nurses are to follow in relation to the therapeutic nurse-client relationship.

[58] However, those guidelines apply only to nurses in relation to their clients. The evidence of Ms. Randall, which I accept, is that Ms. Erb was not her patient and that there was never a nurse-patient relationship. Ms. Randell acknowledges that her relationship with Ms. Erb commenced during her employment as a PSW, but Ms. Randell maintains that during the eight (8) week period where Ms. Randell was assisting Ms. Erb with personal care in her capacity as a PSW, Ms. Randell did nothing to attempt to influence or coerce Mr. Erb to change her Will or Powers of Attorney.

[59] I do not accept the argument of Ms. Bell that a nurse-patient relationship existed between Ms. Erb and Ms. Randell in 2016 at the time Ms. Erb changed her Will and Power of Attorney. There is no evidence before me that Ms. Randell’s relationship with Ms. Erb in and around 2016 was therapeutic in nature. There is no evidence that Ms. Randell at any time acted in her capacity as an RPN in relation to Ms. Erb.

[60] Any relationship between Ms. Erb and Ms. Randell beyond friendship was one of employer and employee. I find that after the eight (8) weeks that Ms. Randell was assisting Ms. Erb through her employment as a PSW, Ms. Randell was thereafter in the personal employ of Ms. Erb, assisting her with some personal care tasks, with house cleaning and grocery shopping. There is no evidence that in this relationship Ms. Randell exerted any power or influence over Ms. Erb.

[61] I have also considered the evidence of Mr. Boehm as to the relationship that existed between Ms. Randell and Ms. Erb. Mr. Boehm refers to Ms. Randell as Ms. Erb’s friend and housekeeper, not her PSW or nurse. Mr. Boehm’s evidence was that he did not consider Ms. Erb to be under the influence of, being coerced by or being taken advantage of by Ms. Randell at any time between January 1, 2016 and January 2, 2018.

[62] A letter was prepared by Mr. Boehm, provided to Ms. Randell’s counsel, made an exhibit on the examinations, and filed as part of the Respondent’s Amended Compendium. In that letter, Mr. Boehm wrote that Ms. Erb had indicated to him that she enjoyed Ms. Randell’s company and friendship, noting that their relationship started when Ms. Randell became Ms. Erb’s housekeeper in 2014. Mr. Boehm also stated, “I recall Betty saying that Claudette had done more for her than many of her long-time friends and expected nothing in return.” Mr. Boehm concluded his letter by writing that Ms. Erb was “a very aware, and caring person right to the end.”

[63] I am not persuaded that simply by virtue of her employment as a RPN, Ms. Randell was obligated to ensure that she was not named as an Executrix, Power of Attorney, or beneficiary of Ms. Erb’s Will. I accept that as a general proposition nurses should maintain appropriate boundaries with their patients and be cautious about accepting gifts. However, there is no evidence that Ms. Randell was Ms. Erb’s nurse or that there was ever a nurse-patient relationship as between Ms. Randell and Ms. Erb. Ms. Randell was therefore under no obligation to observe professional guidelines for nurses in her relationship with Ms. Erb.

[64] I have considered whether there is more generally any evidence that Ms. Randell coerced or influenced Ms. Erb into changing her Will and Powers of Attorney in 2016. There is none. Ms. Bell’s own evidence is that she was in contact with Ms. Erb on a regular basis throughout the years. That evidence is corroborated to some extent by Ms. Randell who deposed that Ms. Bell did on occasion come and visit with Ms. Erb. Despite keeping in regular contact with Ms. Erb, Ms. Bell provided no evidence as to the basis for her belief that Ms. Erb was coerced or unduly influenced by Ms. Randell.

[65] Although Ms. Bell points to Ms. Randell moving in with Ms. Erb in 2016 as suspicious, I would note that the move occurred after the 2016 Will had already been executed. There is also no evidence that Ms. Randell moved in with Ms. Erb because Ms. Erb’s health had deteriorated to the point where she needed a live-in caregiver. There is no evidence that after Ms. Randell moved in with Ms. Erb, she started providing medical care such as would give rise to an inference that a nurse-patient relationship existed.

[66] Suspicious circumstances must be established on the civil standard of proof – balance of probabilities. Sopinka, J. writing for the Court in Vout held that evidence as to suspicious circumstances “must, however, be scrutinized in accordance with the gravity of the suspicion.” [3]

[67] This statement regarding the standard of proof being connected to the gravity of the suspicion was called into question by Newbould, J. in Henry v Henry wherein the question was posed as to whether Vout is still good law in light of Justice Rothstein’s decision in F.H. v McDougall. [4] Ultimately Newbould, J. declined to opine on whether these two seemingly conflicting decisions could be reconciled or whether F.H. represented a restatement of the law.

[68] In this case, there is no evidence to support Ms. Bell’s assertion that Ms. Randell coerced or unduly influenced Ms. Erb to change the provisions of her Will. Given the absence of evidence, I need not determine whether the standard of proof to be applied is balance of probabilities or something correlated to the gravity of the suspicion. On either test, the lack of evidence fails to meet the standard.

[69] I find that Ms. Bell has not met her onus to demonstrate that there are suspicious circumstances in relation to coercion or undue influence by Ms. Randell on Ms. Erb and therefore the presumption of validity is not displaced.

Certificate of Pending Litigation

[70] Ms. Bell has no direct interest in Ms. Erb’s former residence. Even as a beneficiary of the estate, Ms. Bell has no claim as against Ms. Erb’s house.

[71] Ms. Bell was unable to provide any evidence or legal basis as to why the CPL obtained against Ms. Erb’s house should remain. Even if a trial in this matter were required to determine the validity of the 2016 Will, there is no basis for the CPL to remain registered on title.

[72] At the end of the argument in this matter, Ms. Randell confirmed on the record that she was waiving her claim for damages in relation to the CPL. Therefore, the only issue to be determined is whether or not an order should be made removing the CPL.

[73] I am satisfied that Ms. Bell has no direct interest in the property against which the CPL was registered and an order should therefore be made for the removal of the CPL.

Liability for Interest Accrued and Payable on Legacies

[74] This particular issue was not argued in a fulsome way at the motion hearing. Upon a review of my notes, I am not satisfied that counsel had a sufficient opportunity to address the request made by Ms. Randell for an Order that Ms. Bell bear responsibility for the entirety of the interest accrued and payable on all the specific legacies listed in the 2016 Will. I am therefore not able to make a determination on this issue without further submissions.

[75] If the parties are unable to resolve this matter, written submissions shall be filed as per the timelines set out below and I will issue additional written reasons accordingly.

Conclusion

[76] Having considered all of the evidence, I am satisfied that the 2016 Will should be confirmed as the valid last Will and Testament of Ms. Erb and a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee should be issued to Ms. Randell accordingly.

[77] I also find that the CPL registered against Ms. Erb’s former home by Ms. Bell should be ordered removed. As Ms. Randell has withdrawn her claim for damages in relation to the CPL, there shall be an order confirming the withdrawal of that claim accordingly.

[78] The remaining issues to be addressed are what amount, if any, should Ms. Bell be liable for in relation to interest accrued and payable on the legacies in the 2016 Will for the time period June 2, 2019 to the expected date of their payment and costs of this application. The parties shall file their written submissions as follows:

1. The Respondent shall file her submissions on or before February 16, 2024.
2. The Applicant shall file her responding submissions on or before March 8, 2024.
3. Reply by the Respondent on or before March 22, 2024.
4. In the event that the issue of liability for interest accruing on the legacies is resolved and the only remaining matter is costs, the parties primary costs submissions shall be limited to three (3) pages in length, double-spaced, 12-point font, exclusive of Offers to Settle and Bills of Costs and reply submissions are limited to two (2) pages in length, double-spaced, 12-point font.

[79] Order to go:

1. The Law Will and Testament of Linda Elizabeth Erb, dated June 22, 2016, is adjudged to be the valid last Will of Linda Elizabeth Erb also known as Linda Elizabeth Pflug.
2. The Applicant’s Notice of Objection dated June 25, 2018 and filed on June 27, 2018 under Court File No. 2108-472 is hereby struck.
3. The Registrar of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice at Kitchener, Ontario shall forthwith re-issue to the Respondent, Claudette Randell, the executrix and trustee named in last Will of Linda Elizabeth Erb, the Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee with a Will without the need to post an administration bond or other security.
4. The claim by the Respondent for damages in relation to the Applicant’s registration of the CPL are withdrawn.
5. The Land Registrar is hereby directed to discharge, or to cause to be discharged, from title to the lands legally described as Part Lot 47, Plan 788, City of Kitchener, regional Municipality of Waterloo, Province of Ontario, as in Instrument Number 592426, being all of the Property Identified Number 22340-0165 (LT) in the Land Registry Office for Waterloo Region, and registered in the name of Linda Elizabeth Pflug, the Certificate of Pending Litigation registered on August 13, 2018 against title to that property as Instrument No. WR1131123.

A.D. Hilliard Released: January 25, 2024

COURT FILE NO.: CV-18-1015 DATE: 2024/01/25 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Constance Violet Bell Applicant – and – Claudette Randell Respondent REASONS FOR RULING A. D. Hilliard, J. Released: January 25, 2024

[1] Orgus Estate v Samuel and Bessie Orfus Family Foundation, 2011 ONSC 3043, [2011] O.J. No. 4301 at para. 14.

[2] Vout v Hay, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 876

[3] Ibid at paragraph 24.

[4] [2009] O.J. No. 1185 at para. 39