Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
COURT FILE NO.: CV-23-00696578-00ES
DATE: 2024-12-09
RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF DONATO VALERIO, DECEASED
MARY GRACE LOPRESTI, Applicant
AND:
PASQUALINO VALERIO, personally and in his capacity as a former attorney for property and attorney for personal care for Donato Valerio and in his capacity as the named estate trustee for the estate of Donato Valerio, Respondent
BEFORE: M. D. Faieta J.
COUNSEL: Ian Hull and Natalia Angelini, for the Applicant Peter Askew, for the Respondent Sean Lawler, for the non-parties, Paul Bigioni and Bigioni LLP Matthew Furrow, for the non-party, Lawrence Sutton Alice Colquhoun, for the non-party, Keith Nichols Peter Neufeld, for the non-parties, Angelo Gugliemi and Maria Gugliemi
HEARD: July 18, 2024
ENDORSEMENT
faieta J.
[1] In support of her application for a declaration that a codicil made by her deceased father that appoints the respondent as the sole estate trustee is invalid, and her application to remove the respondent as estate trustee, the applicant brings this motion for an order requiring the production of medical records, solicitor records and police records and for leave to examine the deceased’s solicitors pursuant to Rule 31.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
BACKGROUND
[2] Donato Valerio died on January 16, 2023 (“Donato). He was predeceased by his wife Filomena Valerio (“Filomena”). Donato and Filomena were survived by two children: Mary Grace (“Mary”) and Pasqualino (“Pat”). I refer to the parties and their parents by their first names, for convenience.
[3] The only asset of significant value in Donato’s Estate is a ten-acre property in Markham, Ontario where Donato and Filomena resided. (“Markham Property”).
2006 Fraud Action
[4] As will be further explained below, a fraud action was commenced by a former business partner against Pat and his spouse Rosanna alleging that they had misappropriate $1.5 million from the company. Both Pat’s parents and Rosanna’s parents were named as defendants. They retained Paul Bigioni to defend this action. The action settled in about 2008.
2009 Will
[5] Donato made a Will dated January 28, 2009, that named Filomena as the Estate Trustee of his Estate and which named Mary and Pat as alternate co-estate trustees. The residue of Donato’s Estate was to be left to Filomena but, if she did not survive him by thirty days, then the residue of Donato’s estate would be divided equally between Pat and Mary. (“2009 Will”). The 2009 Will was drafted by Mr. Bigioni.
2019 Codicil and 2019 POAs
[6] About ten years later, on March 5, 2019, Donato executed a codicil to provide that the issue of Pat and Mary would inherit their respective share of his Estate should either of them fail to survive him for thirty days. (“2019 Codicil”)
[7] At the same time, Donato executed a continuing power of attorney for property that appointed Filomena, Pat and Mary as his attorneys. It provides that any decision that involves the management of property with a value greater than $25,000 requires the approval of a majority of his attorneys. As well, he executed a power of attorney for personal care that appointed Filomena, Pat and Mary as his attorneys.
[8] These instruments were prepared by Keith Nichols.
Filomena’s Death
[9] Joselie Paglinawan Alcayde (“Joselie”) was Filomena and Donato’s personal support worker from February 1, 2020 until Donato’s death in January 2023. She worked eight hours a day from Monday to Friday. On the weekends, Fe Celestial, took her place. Joselie states that Donato was a heavy drinker and that he suffered from heart issues, colon cancer and COVID-19 which eventually took his life. She states that Mary was present daily until Filomena’s death on July 27, 2020, and then Pat took over to help Donato with his financial and other needs. Joselie observed Pat speaking forcefully to Donato. She states that Donato once told her that he was afraid of upsetting Pat. She also states that Pat tried to keep Mary away from Donato.
[10] Fe Celestial (“Fe”) states that she worked for Donato from June 2022 until his death in January 2023. She worked weekends from 8 am to 7 pm. Fe states that Pat, his wife and his daughter, were very good to her and Donato. They brought food for him and tidied up his home. Pat took care of the maintenance of Donato’s home both inside and outside. Fe never saw Pat raise his voice to Donato or otherwise intimidate him. Donato told Fe that Mary’s husband was not “a good guy”. He also told her that he was not dying of cancer but rather from the heartbreak because neither his children nor his grandchildren got along.
2022 POAs
[11] On July 27, 2022, Donato executed a power of attorney for property and a power of attorney for personal care (“the 2022 POAs”) both of which appointed Pat as the sole attorney. This instrument was prepared by Lawrence Sutton.
2022 Codicil
[12] On November 29, 2022, Donato signed a second codicil that was prepared by Mr. Sutton (“2022 Codicil”). It does not change the equal division of the residue of the Estate between Mary and Pat pursuant to the terms of the 209 Will. However, it removes Mary as co-estate trustee and appoints Pat as the sole estate trustee, with Mary as the alternate. It also makes a gift of $50,000.00 to one of Donato’s caregivers, Joselie Alcayde. (“2022 Codicil”).
[13] The applicant submits that Pat’s appointment as the sole estate trustee in the 2022 Codicil makes no sense as, in her view, everything up to that point indicated that Donato did not trust Pat. However, the so-called “U-turn” in Donato’s trust in his son, if there was any such change, may be explained, at least in part, by the events that occurred in Donato’s home involving the police in the several months prior to the making of the Codicil that are described near the end of this Endorsement.
[14] Mr. Sutton’s records in respect of the 2022 POAs and the 2022 Codicil were produced pursuant to the 2023 Consent Order described below. His records state:
(a) Mr. Sutton met with Donato on a number of occasions.
(b) Mr. Sutton had no concerns about Donato’s capacity or independence.
(c) Donato advised Mr. Sutton that Mary’s husband, Francesco LoPresti, is a “problem” and Mr. Sutton concluded that Donato was “very nervous” of Mary and her husband.
(d) Donato was very upset about fighting in the family.
(e) Donato was clear that he wanted Pat to handle his affairs.
(f) A note dated July 20, 2022 states: “It is quite clear from my correspondence with Mr. Turk and the goings-on over the last few months, that Mary and her husband believe that Pat has had the Will changed and obviously they don’t trust him at all. Pat was very clear he has no interest in changing the terms of the Will. He is very reticent to even step in as executor, but I told him that I would recommend that to his father as I don’t think he and Mary could realistically expect to properly deal with the estate, and more importantly, his father said he wanted him to take care of everything because that’s what he had been doing”. [Emphasis added]
(g) A note dated July 27, 2022 states: “He certainly understood what I was saying to him and he was very clear that he wanted just Pat. He is obviously very unhappy with the dispute between Pat and his sister and the apparent unrelenting efforts and suspicion by the sister regarding the goings on.” [Emphasis added]
Application
[15] Donato died on January 16, 2023.
[16] In March 2023, Mary commenced this application for, amongst other things, an order for directions regarding the validity of the 2022 Codicil on grounds of lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, lack of knowledge and approval and the presence of suspicious circumstances.
Consent Production Order
[17] On May 30, 2023, a consent Order was granted in respect of various matters including the production of Donato’s medical and financial records from May 1, 2022, onwards as well as certain legal records pertaining to Donato (“2023 Consent Order”). It states, in part, as follows:
THIS COURT ORDERS that the parties be and are hereby entitled to compel production of all medical notes, records and files from May 1, 2022 onwards relating to the Deceased, and any records pertaining to the Deceased from any retirement or nursing home, including a OHIP Claims Reference Summary or decoded OHIP list of services to the Deceased, from any person or physician, institution, health care facility or health care provider in possession, power or control of such documents, and any predecessors or successors in interest, in the same manner and to the same extent as the Deceased would have been able, if he were alive. Upon receipt of any such documents, the party shall produce copies to counsel for the other party, with the cost incurred in relation to the production and copying of said documents to be paid by the party requesting the records in the first instance, and with the final determination as to payment of such costs and expenses to be reserved to the Trial Judge, unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties.
THIS COURT ORDERS that the parties be and are hereby entitled to compel production of all financial records, banking records, tax records, and any and all records from May 1, 2022 onwards regarding the assets, liabilities, income and expenses relating to the Deceased from any financial advisor, corporation, bank, trust company, insurance company, accountant or other authority in possession, power or control of such records, and any predecessors or successors in interest, in the same manner and to the same extent as the Deceased would have been able, if he were alive. The parties will, upon receipt of any such documents, produce copies to counsel for the other party, with the cost incurred in relation to the production and copying of said documents to be paid by the party requesting the records in the first instance, and with the final determination as to payment of such costs and expenses to be reserved to the Trial Judge, unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties.
THIS COURT ORDERS that the parties be and are hereby entitled to compel production of all solicitors files, notes and records in connection to (i) the Deceased’s powers of attorney and estate planning in the possession, power or control of Lawrence Sutton and Cattanach Hindson Sutton VanVeldhuizen LLP, or its predecessors or successors in interest, and (ii) the Deceased’s consultation in 2022 with Keith Nichols and Nichols Law Professional Corporation in respect of the making of any new codicil to the Will and/or new testamentary document, in the same manner and to the same extent as the Deceased would have been able, if he were alive. The parties will, upon receipt of any such documents, produce copies to counsel for the other party, with the cost incurred in relation to the production and copying of said documents to be paid by the party requesting the records in the first instance, and with the final determination as to payment of such costs and expenses to be reserved to the Trial Judge, unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties.
THIS COURT ORDERS that the disclosure Ordered in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 above is made without prejudice to the applicant’s right to seek further disclosure.
THIS COURT ORDERS that should any of the above-mentioned third parties to whom document requests are being made object to making production, they may make submission to this Honourable Court in this regard.
THIS COURT ORDERS that, with respect to the individuals identified in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4, above, any claim in respect of the deceased, of lawyer/client privilege, financial advisor/client privilege, or any other professional privilege, including medical privilege, or the duty of confidentiality relating to the instructions for, making of, or execution of, any of the deceased’s testamentary or personal documentation, financial documentation, or documentation relating to property, real estate, or a corporation of the deceased, inclusive of any privacy regulations and legislation which may prohibit the obtaining of such information, including personal; health information in respect of the deceased, documentation in respect of the deceased governed by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (the “PIPEDA”), and the Personal Health Information Protection Act (the “PHIPA”), shall be and hereby is waived by this Order.
Motion for Further Productions
[18] Mary seeks the following Order:
(a) Production of all medical notes, records and files related to Donato from December 1, 2019, onward.
(b) Production of all solicitors’ files, notes and records related to Donato and Filomena from Paul Carl Bigioni and Bigioni LLP and specifically related to:
a. Their defence of a 2006 action bearing Court File No. 06-CV-308398PD3
b. Donato’s and Filomena’s estate planning in 2009.
(c) Production of all solicitors’ files, notes and records related to Donato’s and Filomena’s estate planning from Keith Nichols and Nichols Law Professional Corporation.
(d) Production of all notes, reports, diagrams, photographs, videotapes, 911 recordings, and statements in the possession and control of York Regional Police that relate to investigations of Donato at the Property in respect of the following domestic disputes on April 2, 2022, May 6, 2022, May 8, 2022, and July 20, 2022.
(e) Leave pursuant to Rule 31.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to examine Mr. Bigioni, Mr. Nichols and Mr. Sutton.
ANALYSIS
[19] This motion for directions is brought pursuant to Rule 75.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Myers J. in Seepa v. Seepa, 2017 ONSC 5368, at para. 39, provided the following guidance in respect of the exercise of the court’s discretion in making an order for directions under Rule 75.06(3):
In my view, the court ought to measure the evidence adduced by the applicant challenger against the evidence answered by the proponent of the will and assess what, if any, processes are required to resolve any conflicts that the court cannot fairly resolve on the record before it. The court will be guided in making directions, as always, by the primary dictate to fashion a process that provides a fair and just resolution of the civil dispute. A fair and just resolution process is one that is developed to meet the goals of efficiency, affordability, and proportionality that underpin all civil cases as directed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak.
ISSUE #1: SHOULD ADDITIONAL MEDICAL RECORDS BE DISCLOSED?
[20] The 2022 Codicil was executed on November 29, 2022. Mary has been provided with Donato’s medical records for about a seven-month period prior to the making of the 2022 Codicil. She asks that Donato’s medical records going back to December 1, 2019, be produced for the following reasons:
(a) Once Filomena began suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, Donato began drinking “out of control”.
(b) Donato’s heavy drinking caused severe health problems which led to heart surgery in December 2019.
(c) After Filomena died in July 2020, Donato’s drinking worsened even further and he would often begin drinking before noon and consume a three-litre jug of wine or beer and pass out.
(d) In December 2021, Donato began having severe rectal bleeding episodes which worsened over the next few months, which led to the discovery of a tumour in his colon in May 2022 and a diagnosis of colon cancer in June 2022.
(e) Pat created discord between Donato and Mary and her family. Donato’s behaviour towards Mary in his later years was inconsistent with his historical reliance and closeness to her. Mary believes that Donato’s drinking played a significant role in his change of behaviour which led to the 2022 Codicil.
[21] Mary asserts that Donato suffered from “diminished capacity” at the time that he executed the 2002 Codicil. However, that assertion is not supported by the medical records or legal records that have been produced. To borrow again from Myers J. in Seepa, at para. 28, there is something innately offensive about the idea that a disgruntled family member “… can simply romp through a testator’s most private legal and health information fishing for evidence on making the most meagre of allegations of impropriety on no real evidence.” I dismiss Mary’s motion for the production of additional medical records.
ISSUE #2: SHOULD THE FILES OF DONATO’S SOLICITORS BE PRODUCED AND SHOULD HIS SOLICITORS BE EXAMINED?
[22] Mary seeks the disclosure of solicitor client privileged documents from three legal files.
[23] Solicitor client privilege is not engaged when evidence of the deceased’s solicitor is sought in will cases in respect of matters “dealing with the execution, tenor or validity of wills” as such evidence furthers the interests of the deceased by allowing evidence to be admitted in order to ascertain the deceased’s true intentions: Goodman Estate v. Geffen, 1991 CanLII 69 (SCC), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 353, at para. 64; Sidney N. Lederman, Alan W. Bryant & Hamish C. Stewart, Sopinka, Lederman & Bryant: The Law of Evidence in Canada, 6th ed. (Toronto, LexisNexis, 2022), at §14.151.
[24] In Ontario (Attorney General) v. Ballard Estate, 1994 CanLII 7513 (ON SC), [1994] O.J. No. 2281, 20 O.R. (3d) 350, Lederman J. stated:
7 The proper approach is to bear in mind the rationale of the solicitor-client privilege and whether it has any applicability to this kind of situation. The Supreme Court of Canada in Goodman Estate v. Geffen (1991), 1991 CanLII 69 (SCC), 81 D.L.R. (4th) 211 made it clear that there are situations where the privilege does not even arise as where the interests of the party seeking the information are the same as those of the "client" who retained the solicitor in the first place. For example, in contested wills cases courts have received the evidence of instructions given to solicitors who prepared wills for testators in order to determine their true intentions. In Stewart v. Walker (1903), 6 O.L.R. 495 (C.A.), Moss C.J.O. explained the reason as follows [at pp. 497-498] [emphasis added]:
The nature of the case precludes the question of privilege from arising. The reason on which the rule is founded is the safeguarding of the interest of the client, or those claiming under him when they are in conflict with the claims of third persons not claiming, or assuming to claim under him and that is not this case, with the question is as to what testamentary dispositions, if any, were made by the client.
8 This principle was extended by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Goodman Estate v. Geffen case to the validity of a trust agreement after the death of the settlor. Wilson J. explained the reason for so doing as follows at p. 235:
In my view, the considerations which support the admissibility of communications between solicitor and client in the wills context apply with equal force to the present case. The general policy which supports privileging such communications is not violated. The interests of the now deceased client are furthered in the sense that the purpose of allowing the evidence to be admitted is precisely to ascertain what her true intentions were.
Should the Bigioni File Related to the 2006 Fraud Action be Produced?
[25] An action for $1.5 million in damages was commenced in 2006 by Urban Electrical Contractors and Pat’s former business partners, in which it was alleged that Pat, in concert with his wife Rosanna, had misappropriated money and labour the company in order to pay for the construction of their home. Donato, Filomena and Rosanna’s parents, Antonio Gugliemi and Maria Gugliemi, were also named as defendants.
[26] Amongst other things, the claim alleged that Donato, Filomena, Antonio and Maria unlawfully conspired with each other to receive monetary benefits from Urban Electrical and that they knowingly and improperly charged personal expenses to Urban’s account. Donato, Filomena, Antonio and Maria jointly retained Paul Bigioni and Bigioni LLP to represent defend them.
[27] Mary states that this action was settled in 2008 or 2009 by way of a payment of $1,500,000.00 which resulted in Pat and Rossana selling their home to make this payment. Mary states:
The Fraud Action caused my parents a great deal of stress and embarrassment and imposed a significant financial and emotional burden on the family. My parents were upset about Pat’s conduct that caused them to become embroiled in his legal troubles, and they lost all trust in Pat as a result.
I understand from discussions with my parents that they spoke with Mr. Bigioni about their concerns and fears surrounding Pat’s conduct, and that it was Mr. Bigioni who recommended that my parents take protective steps going forward to limit Pat’s involvement in their financial affairs, including making new wills and powers of attorney.
As such, in 2009, when my parents proceeded to get their affairs in order after settling the Fraud Action, they initially wanted to appoint me as the sole Estate Trustee of both their Estates. At the time, my relationship with Pat was not as fraught, and I wanted to avoid further discord between him and my parents. Accordingly, I urged my parents to appoint both me and Pat as their joint estate trustees in their 2009 testamentary documents.
When my parents made their 2019 POAs with Mr. Nichols’ help (as Mr. Bigioni had ceased private practice), they again indulged my request to appoint both me and Pat as alternate co-attorneys for property and personal care, but included an express condition that any purchase over $25,000.00 had to be approved by a majority of attorneys. The purpose of this clause was to ensure that Pat could not unilaterally make decisions regarding my parents’ property, especially since the Fraud Action.
[28] Antonio states that he did not observe Donato or Filomena being upset with Pat’s conduct as a result of the action and does not believe that they were upset with him. Antonio states that after the action was settled, Pat continued to visit Donato and Filomena frequently and assisted them when they were sick and continued to help them with the upkeep of their home.
[29] The Bigioni file related to the 2006 fraud action was settled about 13 years before the impugned 2022 Codicil. I do not see how the circumstances surrounding the 2006 fraud action, including its settlement, have any relevance to the validity of the 2022 Codicil. While as noted in Roe v. Roe, 2024 ONCA 179, at para. 18, a claim of undue influence requires an understanding of the nature of the relationship between the alleged influencer and the deceased, there is no basis for finding that these records would have relevant information other than Mary’s unsupported evidence. I find that it would not be in the interests of justice to grant this production order.
[30] Mary further submits that the Bigioni file related to the 2006 Fraud Action is relevant to her application to remove Pat as the estate trustee. However, an estate trustee’s past misconduct will only justify removal if such misconduct is likely to continue in order to protect the estate assets and the interests of the beneficiaries: Virk v. Brar, 2014 ONSC 4611, at para. 48.
[31] Further, Angelo and Maria state that they understood that any communication between themselves and Mr. Bigioni were confidential and expected that they would remain confidential. They oppose the disclose of any privileged documents in Mr. Bigioni’s possession. Counsel for Mary has offered to have redacted any information in Mr. Bigioni’s file that pertains to Antonio and Maria before it is produced to the parties. Nevertheless, Antonio objects to the disclosure of his solicitor-client records held by Mr. Bigioni as he believes that the redaction of his and Maria’s personal information will be sufficient to protect their privileged relationship with Mr. Bigioni.
[32] In R. v. Dunbar, 1982 CanLII 3324 (ON CA), [1982] O.J. No. 581, Martin, J.A. stated at para. 83:
The authorities are clear that where two or more persons each having an interest in some matter jointly consult a solicitor, their confidential communications with the solicitor, although known to each other, are privileged against the outside world. …
[33] An exception to this principle exists when spouses jointly retain a solicitor to prepare their wills. In such cases, the surviving spouse implicitly waives solicitor client privilege when the surviving spouse attends with her spouse to give instructions to the solicitor: Durand v. Durand, 2015 MBQB 132, at para. 25; Marder v. Geller, 2024 ONSC 4806, at para. 60. However, this exception has no application on these facts given that the joint retainer was not in respect of estate planning but rather the defence of a civil action.
[34] In my view, the interests of justice make it more important to protect solicitor client privilege than to ascertain the solicitor’s evidence regarding the defence of the 2006 Fraud Action, including any views expressed by Donato to Mr. Bigioni regarding Pat, as it could not have been reasonably anticipated that Antonio and Maria’s privilege would be waived in such circumstances.
Should the Bigioni File and the Nichols File Related to Donato and Filomena’s Estate Planning be Disclosed?
[35] Mary seeks Mr. Bigioni’s files related to Donato and Filomena’s estate planning which occurred in 2009 as well as Mr. Nichols’ estate planning file from 2019.
[36] The 2009 Will appointed Filomena as the estate trustee and named the parties as alternate co-estate trustees. The 2009 Will is not challenged. I do not see the relevance of Mr. Bigioni’s file related to the preparation of the 2009 Will to the validity of the 2022 Codicil.
[37] Mary also seeks Mr. Nichols’ files related to Donato and Filomena’s estate planning file related to the 2019 Codicil and the 2019 POAs. Neither of these documents are challenged. Mary submits that the 2019 POA includes a $25,000.00 limit, unless a majority of the attorneys otherwise agree, that was imposed by Donato at her request given her concerns with Pat’s trustworthiness. I note that the limit applies to both Mary and Pat. In any event, I find that Mr. Nichols’ file for the 2019 Codicil and 2019 POAs should be produced in order to ascertain the circumstances that existed at that time, only three years before the 2022 Codicil, and the impetus for Donato and Filomena’s amendment to the POA as it relates to the $25,000.00 trigger for requiring majority rule.
Leave to Examine the Solicitors
[38] Further, pursuant to Rule 31.10, leave is granted to examine Mr. Sutton and Mr. Nichols in respect of their solicitor files that have been produced or that have been ordered to be produced.
ISSUE #3: SHOULD UNREDACTED RECORDS FROM YORK REGION POLICE BE PRODUCED?
[39] Mary states that Pat’s behaviour led to police being called to Donato’s home on April 6, May 6, May 8 and July 20, 2022. Mary has obtained a redacted copy of the related police reports pursuant to a request made under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.56. Mary states that:
(a) on April 6, 2022, Pat called the police to report that Mary had taken documents from Donato’s safe. However, the police report provides much more detail. The report states that Donato told police that his personal documents from his safe had gone missing. He called Mary to have them returned. She denied having them. They were returned by Mary’s son who told Donato that he would “ruin his life” while Donato was sitting. He left but then returned with his parents. Mary’s husband, Frank Lopresti, stood over Donato while yelling at him. Donato told police he did not want Frank Lopresti coming to his home. The police told Frank Lopresti that he would be charged with trespassing if he attended Donato’s home.
(b) On May 6, 2022, Mary’s husband, Frank Lopresti, called the police because he was concerned by the noise in Donato’s home which resulted when Mary and Pat got into an argument. The police report states that Pat and Mary had got into a loud argument at Donato’s home however by the time that police had arrived the argument had ended. Donato told police that he wants peace between Mary and Pat. He also denied being abused by Pat.
(c) On May 8, 2022, Mary’s husband, Frank Lopresti, when he once again got concerned by the noise in Donato’s home and police attended after he had called for an ambulance. The report states that Mary wanted to Donato to go to the hospital. He refused. Police were called. The police left the scene with the impression that Donato was well and able to make his own decisions.
(d) On July 20, 2022, Pat’s daughter called the police after Mary attended and an argument ensued. Mary states that the redacted report is biased against her. The report states that her husband Frank Lopresti had attended at Donato’s home and was yelling at Donato. Frank Lopresti told police that he was yelling at Pat to leave his son alone.
[40] These reports document a considerable amount of inappropriate behaviour particularly of Mary’s husband. Mary relies on Rule 31.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure which has a two-part test for the purpose of obtaining a full copy of the reports. Given that the parties previously agreed that these reports should be released, I see no reason why the requested order for a full copy of the reports, subject to certain limitations that have been requested by York Region Police, should not be granted in an effort to obtain a less redacted copy of the reports.
DECISION
[41] The applicant’s motion is granted in part. The parties are encouraged to resolve the issue of costs failing which the respondent and non-parties shall deliver their costs submission within ten days and the applicant shall deliver her costs submissions within twenty days. Each costs submission shall be no more than three pages in length exclusive of an outline of costs and any offers to settle.
Mr. Justice M. D. Faieta
Released: December 9, 2024