Wills, Estates, Trusts Law - SCJ

The court granted summary judgment in favour of Maureen Chevalier, finding that Melissa Chevalier was a tenant and not a co-owner or beneficiary of the property at 1377 Matthew Crescent, Belle River, Ontario.

The decision turned on the evidence that Melissa did not contribute to the purchase price, her payments were treated as rent, and there was no evidence of a trust or unjust enrichment.

The court found no genuine issue for trial and dismissed Melissa’s claims.

The court granted the applicant trustee’s request to pass accounts, dispense with a formal passing for a subsequent period, approve compensation, remove herself as trustee, and appoint CIBC Trust as successor.

The court found the trustee’s compensation reasonable, the objections of the respondent Michael Wilson unsubstantiated, and awarded increased costs against Michael due to his conduct.

The decision addresses the administration of a testamentary trust, the entitlement to compensation, and the allocation of costs in estate litigation.

The plaintiffs, grandchildren of the deceased Mary Jane Hockney, brought an action against Mary Jane Kneeland, the estate trustee, for failing to distribute estate funds and for breaches of trust, fiduciary duty, conversion, and unjust enrichment.

The court found Kneeland, a lawyer, liable in both her personal and trustee capacities, noting her egregious and intentional misconduct.

The court awarded the plaintiffs the outstanding estate funds, aggravated damages for distress, and prejudgment interest, and left open the possibility for further claims if substantiated.

This decision resolves an application for directions regarding the administration and distribution of the estate of Yvonne Chieffallo.

The court confirms Elisa Chieffallo and Patrick Briggs as estate trustees, orders equal distribution of the residue among the named beneficiaries, and determines that certain assets (the Valley Drive property, Courtyard Crescent property, and a BMO account) do not form part of the estate.

The court also addresses the doctrine of renunciation and intermeddling, the presumption of resulting trust, and the allocation of proceeds from the sale of a vehicle.

The court considered whether the Last Will and Testament of Lynn Gloria Gamble, dated January 7, 2021, should be found valid and fully effective despite irregularities in its execution and the absence of the original.

The applicant, Robert Dunham, sought to have the will validated and a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee issued.

The respondent, Clarence Earl Gamble Jr., argued that the will was revoked and requested production of RBC safety deposit box access records.

The court found that the applicant had rebutted the presumption of revocation, validated the will under section 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act, and deemed the Windsor Cancer Centre Foundation to be the intended beneficiary.

No costs were awarded.

This decision concerns a dispute over the ownership of a commercial property and business shares following the death of John Morrison.

The applicant, Nancy Morrison (as estate trustee), sought partition and sale of the property, while the respondent, Tomasz Gadomski, claimed he had purchased the estate’s interest in both the property and the business under a 2016 Share Purchase Agreement (SPA).

The court found that the parties intended a single agreement covering both the shares and the property, and that Gadomski had fulfilled his obligations.

The application for partition and sale was dismissed, and Gadomski was declared the sole owner of the property.

This application concerns the interpretation of the Holograph Will of David Dewling Moss, who died in 2024.

The court was asked to determine whether the Canadian Cancer Society is the intended beneficiary of the estate, despite the will referring only to the "Cancer Society," and whether any other next of kin could be beneficiaries.

The court found that the Deceased intended to benefit the Canadian Cancer Society, and that the will, though informal, expressed a fixed and final intention.

The court also found that all reasonable steps were taken to identify and serve potential beneficiaries, and no one opposed the application.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought production of the deceased’s lawyer’s estate planning file to search for documents that might support a claim under section 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act, which allows a court to validate documents as wills even if not properly executed.

The court held that the “wills exception” to solicitor-client privilege does not extend to such fishing expeditions for near-will documents, and that privilege is not waived unless there is evidence of a fixed and final testamentary intention.

The motion for production was dismissed, but other relief was granted on consent.

This decision addresses two issues: (1) the use of artificial intelligence in legal submissions, specifically the submission of facta containing non-existent or misrepresented case law, and (2) the merits of a motion concerning the administration of the estate of Xiang Guo Li, including the setting aside of a divorce order, estate trustee issues, and the rights of competing spouses.

The court set aside the divorce order for fraud and duress, ordered disclosure and administration steps for the estate, and required the applicant's counsel to show cause why she should not be cited for contempt for submitting false authorities.

The court considered whether a United States gift tax liability arising from a 2009 transfer of Florida property by the deceased, Carolyn Alexander, was a just debt of her Ontario estate.

The applicant, Carrie Lynn Dyjack, sought the court’s direction after paying the tax and related expenses personally.

The court found that the U.S. Gift Tax was a proper liability of the estate, rejecting the respondent’s arguments that the tax was not intended to be paid from the estate, that it was a “charge” payable by the beneficiary under the Succession Law Reform Act, or that it was unenforceable in Canada.

The court ordered the estate to reimburse the applicant for the tax and related expenses.

The applicant, Heather Ann Hugginson, sought a declaration that a $400,000 inter vivos gift allegedly given by the deceased, Glenn Poole, to the respondent, Sandra Hugginson, was invalid and that the funds should be returned to the estate.

The court found that Sandra failed to prove Glenn’s specific intent to make the gift or that he delivered the gift before his death.

The court also rejected the argument that the gift was perfected when Sandra became estate trustee, finding the rule in Strong v. Bird did not apply.

The application was granted and Sandra was ordered to return the $400,000 to the estate.

The applicants, grandchildren of the deceased Mary Jane Hockney, sought an order requiring the respondent, Mary Jane Kneeland (the estate trustee and lawyer), to account for and complete the administration of the estate.

The court found that Ms. Kneeland had failed for over a decade to distribute approximately $150,000 held in trust for the beneficiaries, despite repeated requests and complaints to the Law Society of Ontario.

The court ordered Ms. Kneeland to pass her accounts by a set deadline and provided directions for the continuation of the proceeding, including steps to be taken if Ms. Kneeland fails to participate.

This decision addresses two issues in the context of a long-running guardianship and estate dispute: (1) the standing of Indu and Meenu Shewa to participate in the passing of accounts of Sundri Shewa’s property, and (2) the disclosure of medical information regarding Sundri Shewa’s capacity.

The court grants standing to Indu and Meenu, finding their rights and interests may be directly affected by the outcome, and sets out a careful process for the disclosure of sensitive medical records, balancing the need for evidence with privacy concerns.

The applicant, Veronica Ann Balkisson, sought a declaration that her son, Stefan Sandy, held title to a property as a bare trustee for her, claiming a resulting trust.

The respondents, Stefan and his wife Andrea, argued that the property was a gift from Veronica to Stefan and his sister Heaven, as an advance on their inheritance.

The court found that Veronica intended to make, and did make, a gift of the property to Stefan and Heaven, and that her later change of mind did not alter the legal effect of the gift.

The application was dismissed.

The court considered whether Ms. Dubuisson, previously found incapable of managing her property, could move to substitute her guardian under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992.

The court found that while she had standing to bring the motion, she could not do so without a litigation guardian due to her status as a person under disability.

The motion was dismissed, with the court emphasizing the importance of procedural protections for individuals found incapable and the statutory respect for autonomy.

The court considered an application by the estate trustee of Laurette Marie Patriquin for directions regarding the administration of a bequest to a charitable institution that no longer existed at the time of the testator’s death.

The court applied the cy-près doctrine and directed that the bequest intended for The Shriners Hospital for Children in Minneapolis, Minnesota, be paid instead to Shriners Children’s Twin Cities, as its successor.

The court also addressed costs, awarding $3,000 to Shriners Children’s Twin Cities and $10,000 to the applicant, both payable from the estate, after considering proportionality and the necessity of the application.

The court considered whether shares in a co-operative housing corporation, registered to Anne and Jacob Glickman, were held jointly or as tenants in common.

The Estate of Yaacov Glickman sought a declaration that it was the sole beneficial and legal owner of the shares by right of survivorship.

The court found that the shares were held jointly, and upon Anne’s death, her interest passed to Jacob by survivorship.

The court rejected arguments to expand the definition of “land” in the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act to include co-op shares, holding that the Family Law Act presumption of joint tenancy applied.

The applicant, Nicholas Rizkallah, sought various capacity assessments of the respondent, Michel George Rizkallah, including an interRAI Home Care assessment and assessments regarding Michel’s ability to grant/revoke a power of attorney, make a will, and instruct counsel.

The court declined to order the requested assessments, finding that the evidence did not justify further intrusion, that Michel’s wishes and preferences were sufficiently before the court, and that the assessments were not necessary to decide the issues on the application.

The court emphasized the role of s. 3 counsel under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, and the importance of respecting the dignity and legal rights of vulnerable persons.

The court dismissed two actions by will beneficiaries against the drafting lawyer for negligence, holding that the claims were statute-barred by the 15-year ultimate limitation period in section 15(2) of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found that the limitation period began to run from the date of the negligent drafting, not the testator’s death, and that no statutory or common law exception applied.

The court also addressed the application of the Trustee Act and concluded that the two-year limitation period for estate claims did not revive or extend the beneficiaries’ claims.

This decision concerns a motion by Jaspreet Kaur for security for costs against Ronald Dawson in a dispute over the beneficial ownership of real property.

The court finds that Dawson failed to pay prior costs orders, appears to be a nominal applicant, and that the application is arguably frivolous and vexatious.

The court orders Dawson to post security for costs, with leave for Kaur to seek further security as the litigation progresses.