Sean Taylor

The applicants sought declarations that their 82-year-old mother lacked capacity to manage her property and personal care, and orders invalidating testamentary documents she executed in October 2024.

Relying on a court-ordered capacity assessment, the court found the mother had been incapable of managing property and personal care, granting a power of attorney for property, instructing counsel, and possessing testamentary capacity since at least July 2024 due to moderate dementia.

The court declared the October 2024 documents invalid due to lack of capacity and undue influence by her common-law spouse, and affirmed the validity of her prior testamentary documents.

The court also held it had jurisdiction to declare the will invalid while the testator was still alive given she was not expected to regain capacity.

The applicant sought an order under the Business Corporations Act to rectify corporate records, declaring she was never a director of the respondent corporation due to lack of consent, and to remove her name from the list of directors.

She also sought an order for the corporation to appoint new directors or be wound up.

The court found that the applicant had not consented to being a director and granted the declaration and rectification order.

However, the court declined to order the appointment of new directors or the winding up of the corporation, finding it unnecessary given the primary relief, that statutory grounds for winding up were not met, and that proper notice for that specific relief was not given.

The defendant brought a motion under the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, 2010 to overturn the election of the board of directors of the plaintiff church.

The election took place after a physical altercation broke out at the meeting, causing several members to leave for medical attention.

The court found that the defendant was entitled to challenge the election by way of a motion under s. 31(1) of the Act.

The court held that the church failed to prove the election complied with its by-laws, as there was no evidence of the total membership or the number of members present.

The motion was granted, the election was declared invalid, and a new election was ordered.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the plaintiff's action, arguing that no contract was formed as alleged by the plaintiff, or alternatively, that the claim was barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment in his favour, asserting a binding agreement for shares or a portion of sale proceeds.

The court granted the defendants' motion, finding that the parties were never bound to a legally enforceable agreement beyond the initial employment contract, which contained an "entire agreement" clause.

The court concluded there was no "meeting of the minds" on subsequent compensation arrangements and that the limitations period issue was moot given the lack of a discoverable claim.

The applicant sought directions in an estate matter and an order declaring his brother, the respondent, a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondent had engaged in a relentless campaign of harassing emails, threatened multiple baseless legal proceedings, accused the applicant and his lawyers of criminal conduct, and explicitly stated his intention to deplete the estate and ignore court orders.

The court found the respondent's conduct to be vexatious, restricted his ability to institute or continue proceedings without leave, and extended a no-contact injunction.

The court declined to strike the respondent's notice of objection at this stage but required him to pay costs before taking further steps.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to recover legal ownership of a property she transferred to her defendant daughter in 2012.

The plaintiff argued she did not understand the legal effect of the transfer documents and that the transfer was subject to a resulting trust.

The defendant argued the transfer was a completed gift.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion and granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding on a balance of probabilities that the plaintiff intended to gift the property while retaining a life interest, and had simply changed her mind years later.

The applicant sought an order under s. 250(1) of the Business Corporations Act to rectify the respondent corporation's records by removing her name as a director.

The applicant discovered she had been listed as a director without her consent when she received letters from the Canada Revenue Agency regarding the corporation's unpaid source deductions.

The respondents did not appear.

The court found the applicant never consented to the appointment and granted a declaration that she was never a director, ordering the respondents to rectify the corporate records.

The applicant requested an order to amend her human rights application to include additional disabilities (drug addiction and eating disorder) and to increase the remedy sought.

The respondent opposed the request, citing delay and prejudice.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the proposed amendments clarified the nature of the disability and did not significantly expand the scope of the allegations.

The Tribunal also cautioned the applicant regarding confidentiality obligations related to mediation.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming he was terminated shortly after sending an email to his employer regarding his workplace limitations.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant could not point to any evidence linking his termination to his disability, relying solely on the coincidence in timing between his email and the termination for alleged theft.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.