Wills, Estates, Trusts Law - SCJ

This motion concerned the passing of accounts for the estate of Arturo Perlini, specifically challenging the compensation claimed by the estate trustees and the management fee claimed by the attorney under a power of attorney.

The respondent objected to the amounts as unreasonable.

The court applied the five factors from Re Toronto General Trusts and Central Ontario Railway to determine fair and reasonable compensation, finding the claimed amounts excessive due to lack of complexity, delays, and poor investment decisions.

The court reduced the estate trustee fees from 5% to 3% of the estate value and significantly reduced the power of attorney management fee.

The court addressed a motion for directions in an estates dispute.

The motion did not proceed due to both parties' non-compliance with the Central West Practice Direction regarding electronic document uploading to Case Centre.

The judge highlighted significant issues with unbookmarked and unhyperlinked materials, which impeded the court's ability to prepare efficiently.

The motion was adjourned, and revised materials were ordered, with costs of the day fixed at $1,500.00 in the cause.

The judge emphasized that counsel's failure to comply with electronic filing requirements should not be charged to clients.

The applicant, Claude Bachand, sought a declaration of his 25% beneficial interest in a jointly owned property, the sale proceeds of which were held in trust.

The property was originally purchased by the applicant and respondent Danielle Leclair, with both holding 50% in trust for respondent Marc Agostini.

The applicant claimed his 25% interest arose from his role as a grantor on the mortgage, while respondent Leclair argued she held beneficial ownership over his interest, relying on principles of purchase money resulting trust.

The court found that the applicant failed to rebut the presumption of a purchase money resulting trust, as he did not contribute financially to the property's acquisition or ongoing expenses.

The court concluded that the applicant held his interest in trust for Danielle Leclair, entitling her to the remaining net proceeds of sale after Marc Agostini's agreed-upon share.

This ruling addresses the costs of an application for guardianship of person and property.

The applicant, Stephen Vriend, sought costs on a full indemnity scale from Ellen Charlotte Vriend's property.

The court granted Stephen leave to file an updated bill of costs and fixed his costs at a reduced amount, payable from Ellen's property.

The court also reiterated the process for Section 3 counsel to claim their costs, emphasizing that such costs must be determined by the court, not by private agreement.

The plaintiff brought an urgent motion for partial default judgment against the defendant concerning the beneficial ownership of a residential property.

The plaintiff had provided all funds for the property's acquisition and maintenance, with legal title held by the defendant for mortgage purposes.

The defendant subsequently refused to transfer title and encumbered the property with an undisclosed line of credit.

The court, noting the defendant's default, found a resulting trust in favour of the plaintiff, declaring the plaintiff the sole beneficial owner and ordering the vesting of title.

Issues of damages and costs were adjourned.

The applicant, Brian Buday, brought a motion seeking an order to continue an application in the absence of a person representing the estate of his deceased father, Paul Buday, and a vesting order for a property Paul allegedly gifted to him.

The estate was found to be impecunious, and the named executors (Brian and his brother Glen) were in conflict, making it impractical for them to act as litigation administrators.

The court granted the request to proceed without a litigation administrator, finding it in the interests of justice.

However, the court declined to grant the vesting order summarily, determining that a limited trial of the issue was necessary due to conflicting evidence regarding Paul's intention to gift the property and its historical use.

The estate trustee sought directions regarding the administration of an estate and the sale of a property bequeathed to a common-law spouse.

The central issue was whether a clause in the will, stating "It is my wishes that when KELLY CHRISTIANSEN HASSETT sells/otherwise dispose of the Home, twenty (20%) percent of the proceeds shall form part of the residue of my estate," created a legally binding trust or merely a moral obligation.

The court applied the "armchair rule" for will interpretation and found that the language used was precatory, creating only a moral obligation, not a trust.

Consequently, the estate trustee could not compel the sale of the property based on this clause.

The court ordered costs for both parties to be borne by the estate due to the ambiguity in the will.

The Estate Trustee of a deceased co-owner sought partition and sale of a property held as tenants in common with the deceased's three brothers.

The respondents failed to engage in discussions or respond to the application.

The court granted the application for partition and sale, affirming the prima facie right of an owner to such an order unless malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct is proven.

Due to the respondents' non-cooperation, the applicant was granted carriage of the sale, with the court dispensing with the need for respondents' consent or signatures for sale-related documents.

The plaintiff, a student, brought a motion under Rule 51.06(1) seeking judgment against the defendant instructor for breach of fiduciary duty and an assessment of damages, stemming from a sexual relationship between them.

The motion was dismissed because the court found serious issues of fact and law, conflicting submissions, credibility issues, and the defendant's right to a trial on viva voce evidence, indicating that the admissions made were not sufficiently clear or definite to grant judgment without a full hearing.

This is a costs decision following an unsuccessful three-week trial where Robert Mark Roe challenged his mother's will and inter vivos gifts.

The court dismissed both actions (Will Action and Gift Action).

The decision addresses the costs sought by Randall Scott Roe (an estate trustee and successful respondent) and Raymond Christopher Roe (another estate trustee).

The court fixed costs, ordering Mark Roe to pay Randall Scott Roe $330,000 in all-inclusive costs, the estate to cover $260,338.03 of Randall's litigation costs, and Randall to be personally responsible for the balance.

Raymond Christopher Roe was reimbursed $170,000 from the estate for his conciliatory approach.

The plaintiffs sought partition and sale of a family property, while the defendant counterclaimed for a resulting trust, asserting 100% beneficial ownership, and reimbursement for property work.

The court dismissed the defendant's resulting trust claim, finding he failed to prove he contributed more than 50% of the purchase price and that the claim was statute-barred.

The court granted the plaintiffs' request for partition and sale, finding no grounds for refusal.

The defendant's claims for past work were largely dismissed as statute-barred, except for a recent invoice for waterproofing.

The Plaintiffs sought a Mareva injunction against their deceased son's estate, his company, and his common-law spouse, alleging fraud and misappropriation of funds.

The court dismissed the motion against the Estate and the company due to insufficient evidence and procedural issues (lack of appointed estate trustee, uncorroborated evidence under the Evidence Act).

However, the motion was granted in part against the common-law spouse, Rounak Farrokhi Koukia, specifically for e-transfers made from the Plaintiffs' accounts after the son's death, finding a strong prima facie case of unjust enrichment and a real risk of dissipation.

The Mareva injunction against Ms. Koukia was limited to $40,000.

The applicant challenged the validity of a codicil to her mother's will, alleging lack of testamentary capacity due to dementia, and sought accountings under a Power of Attorney and for estate assets.

The court found the applicant failed to meet the onus of proving lack of capacity for the codicil, noting medical evidence did not support severe impairment at the time of execution.

The Power of Attorney accounting was deemed satisfied by a prior order, and further estate accounting was deemed disproportionate given the modest estate value.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, Muhammad Iqbal Khan, sought injunctive relief and other orders related to the estate of his deceased former spouse.

The respondent, Muhammad Ali Khan, the estate trustee, brought a motion for security for costs against the applicant and to convert the application to an action.

The court granted the respondent's motion for security for costs, finding the applicant failed to establish impecuniosity or a good chance of success on his claims, and converted the application to an action.

The court also granted a limited preservation order for the deceased's former residence but dismissed most of the applicant's requested injunctive relief, including an accounting.

Costs for a previous motion were awarded to the respondent, while costs for the current injunctive relief motion were reserved.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim on two grounds: failure to pay three separate cost awards and an alleged fraudulent conveyance by the plaintiff's executor.

The court found that the outstanding cost awards had been paid, and the issue of fraudulent conveyance could not be determined on a motion to strike as it required a trial.

The court also noted that the failure to pass accounts was subject to an appeal and thus could not be relied upon.

Consequently, the motion to strike was dismissed.

The court rendered an endorsement on costs following a successful motion by the Estate to set aside an ex parte order for a certificate of pending litigation obtained by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff had obtained the certificate without notice to the Estate, despite the Estate being represented, and without full disclosure of relevant facts, such as the property having already been sold.

The Estate sought partial indemnity costs after the plaintiff consented to setting aside the order.

The court found that while Rule 42.01(3) permits ex parte motions for certificates of pending litigation, professional courtesy and the adversarial system require notice when counsel is on the record, and full disclosure to the court.

The court fixed costs at $2,500.00 in favour of the Estate, payable by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, an elderly woman, claimed recovery of money alleged to have been loaned to her daughters and son-in-law.

The defendants asserted the money was a gift.

The court applied the presumption of resulting trust, placing the onus on the defendants to prove a gift.

Considering the plaintiff's unreliable testimony, inconsistencies with her pleading, and credible evidence from a granddaughter, the court found that the defendants successfully rebutted the presumption, establishing that the payments were intended as gifts.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Khris Paquette, sought an interim order for occupancy of his deceased mother's property or, alternatively, interim support from her estate.

The deceased's will left no provisions for the plaintiff, naming her brother as the sole beneficiary and estate trustee.

The court found that while the deceased was not providing direct support immediately before her death, a moral obligation existed for the estate to provide support due to the plaintiff's disabilities and limited income.

The request for interim occupancy was denied due to the plaintiff's history of destructive behavior and inability to live alone, and the potential for dissipating the estate's main asset.

However, the court granted interim financial support of $200 per month, finding a demonstrated need despite the plaintiff's lack of specific evidence on the amount sought.

The defendants brought a motion seeking an interim or final order to authorize the transfer of shares held by the Jack Witiluk Family Trust in Phase 2 Ventures Inc. to Jeffrey Witiluk and Ryan Witiluk.

The plaintiffs opposed, citing prejudice, oppression, and technical issues related to board approval and director appointment.

The court found the plaintiffs' opposition lacked merit, emphasizing the long-standing nature of the litigation and the pragmatic business sense of the proposed transfer.

Exercising its discretion under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, the court authorized the share transfer, dismissing the plaintiffs' technical objections.

Costs were awarded against the plaintiff, Gerald Witiluk, personally.

The applicant, Steven Lester, sought a certificate of appointment as Estate Trustee based on his deceased father Robert Lester's 2020 will.

The respondents, Robert's other children Glenn and Cathy Lester, objected to the appointment, alleging that their father lacked testamentary capacity and sufficient knowledge/approval of the will's contents.

The court examined the deceased's medical history, the circumstances surrounding the will's execution, and expert opinions on capacity.

The court found no compelling evidence of suspicious circumstances regarding the testator's capacity, knowledge, or understanding, and upheld the validity of the 2020 will and other related estate planning documents.

The application for appointment was granted, and the objections were dismissed.