Sean Graham

The plaintiff corporation brought a motion for an equalization payment of $320,713.66 from the defendant corporations, arising from a prior trial decision regarding the division of corporate assets between two siblings.

The defendants brought a cross-motion seeking to recalculate the equalization payment to include the value of preference shares, which would result in the plaintiff's principal owing $2,625,000.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion and dismissed the defendants' cross-motion, finding that the calculation of the equalization payment and the exclusion of the preference shares had already been determined in prior proceedings and were therefore res judicata.

The court also resolved several ancillary issues, including the transfer of burial plots and the return of original documents, and prohibited the parties from commencing further litigation without leave.

Following a lengthy trial regarding the ownership of a family business, the successful plaintiff sought costs of approximately $1.57 million.

The plaintiff had served an offer to settle seven days before trial, which the defendant rejected.

The court exercised its discretion under Rule 57.01 to award substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer, finding the offer was reasonable and the defendant's conduct unnecessarily increased costs.

After deducting amounts related to separate actions, the court fixed costs payable to the plaintiff at $1,306,757.90.

The plaintiff and defendant, siblings, disputed the ownership of three real estate holding corporations left to them by their father.

The plaintiff claimed they reached an agreement in 2014 to divide ownership, with the plaintiff taking one corporation and the defendant taking the other two, and that she signed a renunciation of her interest in a family trust based on this agreement.

The defendant argued the agreement was only for a temporary division of management.

The court found that the parties were in a fiduciary relationship, intended to divide ownership, and conducted themselves as sole owners for seven years.

The court granted a declaration that the plaintiff is the beneficial owner of the defendant's shares in the chosen corporation based on contract and proprietary estoppel.

The applicant daughter sought to remove her brother as their incapable mother's Attorney for Personal Care.

The mother had lived with the applicant for 11 years, during which the applicant provided comprehensive daily care and acted as the de facto decision-maker.

The brother, despite being the appointed attorney, failed to act in good faith, refused to reimburse care expenses, and failed to consent to necessary medical treatments.

The court allowed the application, removing the brother and declaring the applicant as the Attorney for Personal Care, finding that the siblings' animosity prevented them from working cooperatively in their mother's best interests.

This endorsement from a case conference addresses the management of two intertwined proceedings: a family law application (divorce, spousal support, equalization, trust claims) and a guardianship proceeding.

The court prioritized the family law application, scheduling a combined settlement and trial management conference.

It also addressed disclosure issues, compliance with previous orders (costs, property listing), and clarified the procedural nature of prior decisions.

The court declined to set a hearing date for the guardianship application at this time.

This endorsement from a case conference addresses the management of two intertwined proceedings: a family law application (divorce, spousal support, equalization, trust claims) and a guardianship proceeding.

The court prioritized the family law application, scheduling a combined settlement and trial management conference.

It also addressed disclosure issues, compliance with previous orders (costs, property listing), and clarified the procedural nature of prior decisions.

The court declined to set a hearing date for the guardianship application at this time.

The applicant, George Chuvalo, brought a family law proceeding.

The respondent wife argued that the proceedings should be stayed under s. 10(2) of the Divorce Act to allow for reconciliation.

The court held a trial on the threshold issue of whether the applicant had the capacity to decide to reconcile or divorce.

Relying on expert medical evidence, the court found that the applicant lacked the capacity to decide whether to reconcile, as he could not appreciate the consequences of such a decision.

The Public Guardian and Trustee was appointed as his litigation guardian.

The appellants, estate trustees of the testator's estate, appealed the trial judge's finding that the testator lacked testamentary capacity when executing two wills dated August 16, 2010 and September 8, 2010.

The trial judge found the testator was unaware of the nature and extent of his assets, did not remember persons he might be expected to benefit, and did not understand claims that could be made by excluded persons.

The appellants also sought leave to appeal the costs award, which required the estate trustees personally to pay costs rather than having them borne by the estate.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable errors of fact and upheld the trial judge's findings on capacity and costs.

The applicants brought a proceeding under the Substitute Decisions Act to remove the respondent as joint Attorney for Property for their father.

The respondent had impeded the applicant's role as Attorney for Personal Care and refused to share authority over property.

Following the father's death, the court had to determine the costs of the proceeding and address the passing of the respondent's accounts as Estate Trustee.

The court found that the respondent's unreasonable conduct caused the litigation and ordered him to personally pay the applicants' costs on a full recovery basis.

The court also found the respondent's estate accounts were not in the proper form and set a timetable for the delivery of revised accounts.

Following earlier guardianship proceedings concerning an incapable adult under the Substitute Decisions Act, a sibling who had acted as de facto caregiver sought reimbursement for expenses incurred while caring for the incapable person for approximately seventeen months.

The court considered evidence from the prior guardianship applications and affidavit materials to determine whether reimbursement was appropriate and whether offsets applied.

The court found that the estate trustees had asked the caregiver to assume responsibility and had agreed to reimburse reasonable expenses incurred for the incapable person’s care.

After accounting for partial payments already made, the court concluded that the caregiver had incurred expenses exceeding the amount claimed.

Judgment was granted against the deceased parent’s estate for $17,000 as an estate administration expense.

Competing applications were brought by siblings seeking appointment as guardian of property and personal care for an adult with developmental disability under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992.

The court found the incapable person required full guardianship due to inability to understand or appreciate decisions concerning personal care and property.

Although the incapable person expressed a preference to remain living with one sibling, the court held her wishes carried limited weight given her incapacity to evaluate long‑term interests.

Applying the overarching best interests test, the court preferred the applicant’s proposal due to her long history of caregiving, parenting experience, and more stable family and financial circumstances.

The applicant was appointed guardian and directed to file an amended management plan.

Estate trustees applied to pass accounts for a four-year period.

The only objection raised by the Children's Lawyer was whether investment management fees paid to a professional investment manager should be deducted from the trustees’ compensation.

The court considered the prudent investor rule under the Trustee Act and the principle that trustees are entitled to indemnification for reasonable expenses incurred in administering an estate.

It held that the trustees reasonably retained specialized investment counsel because the investment of trust assets required expertise beyond their capabilities.

The investment management fees were therefore a proper expense of the estate and should not reduce trustee compensation.