Wills, Estates, Trusts Law - SCJ

The court considered motions regarding the limitation periods applicable to a counter-application and Family Law Act claims in the estate of Murray Gibbons.

Emilia Gibbons sought to dismiss Edward Gibbons' counter-application as statute-barred, while the respondents sought to dismiss Emilia's Family Law Act claims for the same reason.

The court found the counter-application was out of time and dismissed it, but granted an extension for Emilia's Family Law Act claims, allowing them to proceed.

This case conference endorsement addresses the terms of an order following a successful motion by the plaintiffs to remove the defendants’ lawyers of record.

The parties could not agree on two terms: whether the order should specify that each defendant must be separately represented, and whether a deadline should be set for the defendants to retain new counsel.

The court held that the order should simply require separate representation, as per the original ruling, and declined to impose a deadline for retaining new counsel.

The endorsement also clarifies that the mechanism for representation of the Estate of Landino Zuccarini remains to be determined at a future hearing.

The plaintiff, Claire Lesley Crampton, contributed two-thirds of the purchase price for a property in Cayuga, Ontario, with the understanding she would have a corresponding ownership interest, though title was taken in the defendant David Lightfoot’s name alone.

When the relationship between the parties broke down, the plaintiff sought the return of her investment or a declaration of her ownership.

The court found that a resulting trust existed in favour of the plaintiff, entitling her to 66.67% of the property and ordered its sale under the Partition Act.

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation and quantum of costs following a contested application to pass accounts in the insolvent estate of Christina Georgiou Psoma.

The court reviews the parties’ positions, the applicable legal principles, and the conduct of the litigation, ultimately awarding the applicant, Steve Georgiou, costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $23,000, payable by the objectors, Panayiotios Georgiou and Zevoulla Georgiou, jointly and severally.

The decision provides a detailed analysis of the modern approach to costs in estate litigation, the impact of settlement offers, and the role of proportionality and party conduct in determining costs.

The court considered the proper interpretation of annuity and indexing provisions in the John Szewczyk Testamentary Trust, specifically whether the annuity should be indexed annually or only once at inception, and whether overpayments should be repaid.

The court held that the will’s language and surrounding circumstances supported a one-time indexing at the date of death, with subsequent increases limited to $5,000 every five years.

Overpayments made prior to January 1, 2024, are not recoverable due to a prior settlement, but overpayments after that date are to be recouped by postponing the next scheduled increase.

The decision concerns an application by Sheetza McGarry to appoint an interim Estate Trustee and obtain directions regarding the validity of a purported 2016 will and irrevocable life insurance beneficiary designations in the estate of Brian William McGarry.

The court reviews the suspicious circumstances surrounding the will and insurance changes, the renunciation of the named executors, and the positions of interested parties and non-parties.

The court refuses to dismiss the application, finds the applicant has met the evidentiary threshold to challenge the will, and appoints neutral third parties as Estate Trustees During Litigation (ETDLs).

Directions are given for the administration of the estate and the production of legal files.

The court granted Jason Allison's motion for production of financial documents from CMC Consumer Credit Limited, CMC Capital Inc., and Michael Smith.

Allison was found entitled to the documents as a shareholder under a Shareholders’ Agreement, as a trust beneficiary, or as an intended director.

The court rejected the defendants’ arguments regarding clean hands, limitation periods, and the status of Allison as a defaulting or beneficial shareholder.

The court also fixed costs in Allison’s favour.

This decision concerns a motion under section 79 of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, regarding the capacity of Carol Jacqueline Black.

The Court orders that Ms. Black undergo a capacity assessment, with her medical records and related materials to be released to all parties and the assessor.

The Court addresses the history of the parties' disputes, the involvement of various professionals, and the need for independent legal representation for Ms. Black.

The ruling balances the privacy interests of Ms. Black with the need for a fair process and the protection of vulnerable persons.

The court considered an application for interim support and possession by the deceased’s common law spouse, Louise Gabrielle Nadeau, following the death of Joseph Jean Paul Aubut.

The applicant sought to remain in the property rent-free or, alternatively, to receive interim support.

The court found that the applicant was not entitled to interim support, as her need should be assessed only until the hearing, not for the rest of her life, and she had sufficient resources for that period.

The court further held that the applicant must pay occupation rent and utilities, as she had been unjustly enriched by living in the property without payment since the deceased’s death.

The court declined to order arrears and prohibited the limited estate from disposing of assets until the matter’s final determination.

The decision addresses a motion for production of solicitors’ files in an estate dispute.

The applicant, Gary Brian Prosser, sought production of files, notes, and records relating to real estate transactions and wills of the deceased, Anne Jaun, and the respondent, Rudy Jaun.

The court held that Gary was entitled to Anne’s solicitors’ files but not to Rudy’s, as the latter were protected by solicitor-client privilege and no exception or waiver applied.

The court also found that the applicant had not met the onus to establish a secret trust or a right to the trust documents.

The motion was granted in part, ordering production of Anne’s documents only.

The court considered whether powers of attorney for personal care appointing Lee Aubin as attorney for Patricia Roper should be terminated, and whether Roper had any liability to Aubin and/or Seniors Total Care Inc. The court found that Aubin was disqualified from acting as attorney under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, and that the 2021 power of attorney was invalid due to lack of capacity and undue influence.

The services agreement between Roper and Seniors Total Care was also found void for unconscionability and incapacity.

Costs were awarded on a substantial indemnity scale against Aubin.

The applicants sought enforcement in Ontario of an English court order appointing them as deputies for Marija Jurate Danilunas, or alternatively, appointment as guardians under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992.

The court reviewed the evidentiary and legal requirements for recognition of foreign capacity orders, noting the lack of medical evidence and the absence of a statutory regime for automatic recognition of such orders from England.

The court raised several questions regarding the appropriate legal test for recognition of foreign in rem capacity orders, the role of public policy, and the need for further submissions from the parties and potentially interested intervenors.

No final order was made, and the matter was set for further case management.

The defendant, Fletcher’s Fields Limited, brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiffs, Robert Llewellyn Jenkins (as trustee for the Estate of Samuel Harrison Ball) and the Estate of Samuel Harrison Ball.

The court found that the plaintiffs did not have sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a costs award and had not demonstrated impecuniosity or a good chance of success on the merits.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to post $20,000 as security for costs and awarded $10,000 in costs to the defendant, with both amounts payable within 60 days.

This decision concerns the costs arising from protracted estate litigation over the administration and distribution of the estate of Maria Giuseppa Cosentino.

The court reviews the history of three related proceedings, the conduct of the parties and their counsel, and the reasonableness of legal fees claimed.

The court finds that much of the litigation was driven by sibling conflict and overreaching claims, particularly by Sam Cosentino, who acted as both lawyer and party.

The court fixes the costs payable from the estate, significantly reducing some claims, and authorizes the estate trustee during litigation to complete the administration and distribution of the estate.

The court granted default judgment in favour of Dawn Christine Spellman against her brother, Steven Mark Spellman, for breach of fiduciary duty as administrator of their late father's estate.

The decision details Steven's misappropriation of estate assets, failure to account, and disregard for court orders, resulting in an award of general and punitive damages, as well as costs, to Dawn.

The court also ordered that Steven's share of their mother's estate be used to satisfy the judgment.

The decision concerns the administration of the estate of Faina Rogovsky, focusing on the removal of the estate trustee, the passing of accounts, and the determination of trustee compensation.

The court dismissed the application to remove Josef Rogovsky as estate trustee, approved the interim passing of accounts with modifications, and fixed trustee compensation at $32,000 plus HST.

The court also addressed the parties' disputes over loans, asset valuations, and the conduct of the estate administration, emphasizing the need for clarity, prudence, and fairness in estate management.

The decision addresses claims for dependant’s support under Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act by Elena Nikitina (alleged common-law spouse) and Rosa Maria Huynh (adult child) against the estate of Cong Hoanh Huynh.

The court found that Ms. Nikitina was not a common-law spouse and thus not entitled to support, but that Rosa was a dependant and entitled to a lump-sum support payment.

The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the legal and factual requirements for establishing cohabitation and dependency, and the quantum and duration of support for adult children.

This decision concerns the entitlement to the former home of Yvette Poirier and certain funds allegedly misappropriated from her bank account by her late son, Paul Poirier.

The applicant, Lyse Scharfe (Yvette’s daughter and attorney for property and personal care), sought to set aside a 2016 conveyance of the property to Paul, arguing Yvette lacked capacity and was subject to undue influence.

The court found that Yvette Poirier lacked capacity at the time of the transfer and that the presumption of undue influence was not rebutted.

The 2016 conveyance was set aside, and the property was to be re-vested in the joint names of Yvette Poirier and Paul’s estate.

The court also addressed the improper registration of a mortgage on the property by respondent’s counsel.

The court considered whether a person intending to make a claim against an estate for unjust enrichment, based on services rendered to the deceased, has standing to file a Notice of Objection to the granting of a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee under Rule 75.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and to seek removal of the Estate Trustee named in the will.

The court held that such a potential creditor does not have standing to file a Notice of Objection, as the category of persons with standing is limited to those whose claims turn on the outcome of a challenge to the will or the issuance of a certificate of appointment.

The Notice of Objection was ordered removed.

The court considered a motion for contempt against the respondent for failing to comply with an order to vacate a property.

The applicant sought a declaration of contempt, arrest, imprisonment, and a fine.

The court reviewed the procedural and substantive requirements for civil contempt, emphasizing the need for bifurcated liability and penalty phases, and the discretionary and coercive nature of contempt powers.

The court declined to make a formal finding of contempt at this stage, adjourning the motion to allow for further notice and submissions, and to consider less punitive remedies to achieve compliance with the original order.