Wills, Estates, Trusts Law - SCJ

The court considered whether to recognize and enforce a UK court order appointing deputies for the property and affairs of Marija Jurate Danilunas, who resides in England but has significant assets in Ontario.

The applicants sought either full recognition of the UK order or, alternatively, an ancillary order permitting them to access and use Ms. Danilunas’s Ontario assets.

The court reviewed the statutory and common law framework for recognition of foreign guardianship orders, the competing values of autonomy and protection of the vulnerable, and the public policy implications.

Ultimately, the court recognized and enforced the UK order, finding that the process and protections in the UK were sufficiently robust and that no public policy or procedural concerns justified refusing recognition.

The court addresses a motion by the estate trustees of Carmen Debono to hold certain siblings in contempt or, alternatively, to strike their pleadings for failure to comply with a court order requiring disclosure of business email credentials and documents.

The court finds repeated, deliberate non-compliance and strikes the pleadings of David Debono and Elizabeth Muscat, stays the wrongful dismissal action until pleadings are amended, and awards significant costs.

The court declines to proceed with contempt, emphasizing that such proceedings are a last resort in civil matters.

This decision concerns the allocation of costs following a trial regarding the estate of Edward Malcolm LaFrance.

The court considered submissions from both parties, each seeking costs on different bases, but ultimately determined that no costs should be awarded to any party due to the divided success at trial and the nature of the family estate dispute.

Each party is to bear their own costs.

The court considered whether a $1.2 million advance from the late William Humphries, through Radlett Holdings Inc., to Angela Zheng was a gift or created a resulting trust.

The court found that the funds were not a gift, but rather that Radlett Holdings Inc. retained a 60% beneficial interest in the property purchased by Angela Zheng, based on the intention of the deceased at the time of the advance.

The court relied on the evidence of the lawyer and accountant for the deceased, and found the defendant's evidence not credible.

The Royal Bank of Canada sought default judgment for possession of a mortgaged property after the defendants, the Estate of Morrison Augustin and Bridget Daniel, failed to defend the proceeding.

The court found the plaintiff had established liability based on deemed admissions and affidavit evidence, and granted an order for possession of the property, as well as costs to be assessed.

The decision addresses two motions in an estate dispute: a motion by Julie Garneau for production of records from several non-parties under Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and a motion by Karen Joanne Garneau to strike Julie's Reply Affidavit.

The court struck the Reply Affidavit as improper reply evidence and dismissed the production motion as premature, finding that the parties had not yet exchanged affidavits of documents or conducted discoveries.

The court held that the requested records could be sought after the discovery phase if necessary, and that some records were subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The applicants, Zoranna Drumonde and Nicholas Spellay, sought the removal of their sister, Rosalie Spellay, as estate trustee and the sale of the family cottage left by their late mother, Rose Anne Spellay.

The court interpreted the will, which intended the cottage to remain in the family, and found that the property should be treated as held in joint tenancy among the surviving siblings.

The court held that the applicants could force a sale under the Partition Act, and that the opt-out clause for a $5,000 buyout was a one-time option that had expired.

The court ordered the property to be listed for sale, with proceeds to be divided unequally in recognition of Rosalie Spellay’s contributions, and left costs to each party.

The decision addresses a motion by Martin Z. Rosenbaum and his law corporation for the recusal of the case management judge, Lorne Brownstone, in a complex, multi-party trust account litigation arising from alleged misappropriation by Vanessa Ibe.

The court reviews the history of the litigation, the role of LAWPRO, and the management of case conferences.

The motion is dismissed, with the court finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and emphasizing the need for efficient case management in the interests of all parties, especially the victims.

The court considered an application by Frank Iannace to set aside his late father's will, which disinherited him in favour of his brother, Peter Iannace.

Frank alleged lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence.

The court found a serious issue to be tried regarding undue influence, and granted certificates of pending litigation (CPL) and preservation orders over certain estate assets, but not over a property owned by a corporation.

The court also ordered disclosure and partial indemnity costs.

This decision interprets the will of William Archibald Stewart, focusing on the vesting and abatement of gifts of farm properties to his sons, Robert and Winfield, and the impact of subsequent events including the assignment of a mortgage to William’s widow, Edith, and her own testamentary dispositions.

The court addresses whether gifts vested at William’s death or Edith’s, the effect of the mortgage assignment, the abatement of gifts to pay estate liabilities, and related issues of constructive trust, unjust enrichment, and executor liability for tax consequences.

The applicant, Joe Hamrak, sought directions regarding the validity of two wills made by the deceased, John Joseph Hamrak.

The court found that the 2022 Will was valid and the 2023 Will invalid due to the testator's lack of testamentary capacity at the time of the latter's execution.

The court also addressed the loss of the original 2022 Will, the improper transfer of funds, and the allocation of costs from the estate.

The decision concerns an estate dispute between Glen Last and Craig Last (personally and as joint Estate Trustee for the Estate of Jacqueline Last), with TD Canada Trust as a respondent.

Glen alleged that Craig misappropriated significant estate assets and failed to account for his management of the estate, seeking a reduction of Craig’s share and other relief.

The court found that Craig failed to provide a proper accounting, drew an adverse inference, and ordered a substantial reduction of Craig’s share of the estate, as well as costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court considered whether a condominium unit owned by the late Qasem Mahmud was held in trust for the Arabic and Islamic Education Foundation.

The applicant, as estate trustee, sought a declaration that neither an express trust nor a purchase money resulting trust existed in favour of the Foundation.

The court found that the requirements for an express trust were not met, as Mr. Mahmud did not own the property when the declaration of trust was signed and the necessary formalities were lacking.

The court also found that the Foundation did not contribute to the purchase price at the time of acquisition, so no purchase money resulting trust arose.

The application was allowed, and the Foundation was found to have no beneficial interest in the property.

This endorsement addresses objections by John J. McAteer to the passing of accounts by the respondents as estate trustees for the estates of their late parents.

The court considers the applicant's entitlement to production of documents, especially those relating to corporations managed by the respondents as attorneys for property for their mother.

The court emphasizes the principle of fiduciary accountability and transparency, discusses proportionality in production, and addresses issues regarding interim distribution and mediation.

The court orders production of relevant documents (with a minor exception), declines to order an interim distribution or mediation at this stage, and directs the parties to cooperate on scheduling.

The court considered whether the repeal of sections 15(a) and 16 of the Succession Law Reform Act by Bill 245 should apply retroactively to revive a will revoked by marriage prior to January 1, 2022.

The court held that the presumption against retroactivity was not rebutted, and the deceased's will, revoked by marriage in 2003, was not revived.

The deceased died intestate.

This decision fixes costs following a motion in long-running litigation involving the Estate of Sulochana Shanthakumar and the Royal Bank of Canada.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to RBC and its counsel, rejecting the request for substantial indemnity and the applicant’s claim for costs.

The reasons review the history of the litigation, the conduct of the parties, and the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, ultimately awarding $16,500 in costs to be paid by Mr. Mylabathula to RBC.

The court determined whether certain joint accounts held by the deceased, Christine Black, and her brother, Bruce Albert Chamberlain, were assets of the estate or a gift to Bruce.

The court found that Bruce failed to rebut the presumption of resulting trust and did not establish that the joint accounts were a valid gift.

The funds in the joint accounts were therefore declared assets of the estate for distribution to the residual beneficiaries.

The decision reviews the evidence, the parties' positions, and the applicable legal principles, including the need for corroboration under the Evidence Act and the requirements for establishing a gift of joint account funds.

This decision concerns an application by Dr. Kelly Diane Riedel regarding the validity and administration of the Dmyant Sangha Family Trust and the Sangha Property Trust.

Dr. Riedel alleges that the trusts are shams, created to defeat her family law entitlements, and seeks various forms of relief including the production of legal records and the conversion of the application to an action.

The court addresses the legal standards for sham trusts, the relevance of disputed facts, and the entitlement to privileged documents.

The application to convert to an action is dismissed, and the court sets out a process for determining threshold questions regarding the validity of the trusts.

This costs decision in an estate litigation matter addresses the modern approach to costs in estate proceedings.

The court reviews the principles from Sawdon Estate v. Watch Tower and Salter v. Salter Estate, emphasizing that costs are generally to be paid by the unsuccessful party, with the estate indemnifying the estate trustee for any shortfall.

The court finds that both parties acted reasonably in litigating the issue of a holograph will, and orders that all parties' costs be paid out of the estate, balancing fairness, proportionality, and access to justice.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) applied to be appointed as the permanent guardian of property for Fumio Hara, a 91-year-old suffering from dementia, and to terminate the existing power of attorney naming his brothers, Gerald and Katsushi Hara.

The court found compelling evidence that Gerald had misappropriated and mismanaged Fumio’s property, and that no other family member was willing or able to act as guardian.

The court appointed the PGT as permanent guardian, despite Fumio’s prior wishes, and awarded substantial indemnity costs against Gerald.