Shael Eisen

In complex proceedings involving an inspection application, receivership, and bankruptcy relating to corporate entities and a charitable foundation, the Inspector brought a motion to approve accounts and increase an administrative charge.

Counsel for the foundation sought an adjournment due to counsel’s unavailability outside Canada.

The court granted the adjournment and set procedural timelines for the exchange of materials and questions regarding accounts.

The court also extended existing ex parte restraining orders and the appointment of an interim receiver pending a return hearing.

Respondents subject to the restraining orders were directed to provide an accounting of expenditures made under the limited exceptions permitted by the orders.

Appeal from a Master’s order dismissing a motion to consolidate or have five related estate, trust, negligence, and third-party proceedings heard together under Rule 6.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellants argued the Master misapplied Rule 6, lacked jurisdiction findings, and failed to grant ancillary relief including lifting a stay.

The court held the Master properly exercised her discretion, correctly considered the balance of convenience, and reasonably concluded that consolidating the proceedings would unfairly burden non-family parties with minimal benefit.

The court further held the Master correctly determined that certain requested relief, including effectively converting an application to an action and transferring estate matters, fell outside her jurisdiction.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

A residual beneficiary brought a motion seeking a ruling that the drafting solicitor’s contemporaneous notes regarding the testator’s instructions were inadmissible in an application to interpret a will.

The dispute concerned whether the residue should be divided into three shares, with one share divided among four children, or into six equal shares among six individuals.

The court held that the language of the will suggested an equal division among six beneficiaries but also found that, if the clause were considered ambiguous as argued by the moving party, extrinsic evidence could be admitted to clarify the testator’s intention.

Applying appellate authority recognizing a trend toward admitting surrounding circumstances in will interpretation, the court ruled that the solicitor’s notes were admissible as extrinsic evidence.

Costs were ordered in the cause.

Following a guardianship application and the subsequent death of the incapable person, her former counsel, Swadron Associates, brought a motion for directions under Rule 75.06 regarding unpaid legal fees.

The applicant, Glen Salzman, brought a cross-motion seeking costs personally against the firm.

The court determined several preliminary issues, finding that Swadron Associates had standing under Rule 75.06 but denying its requests for preservation of funds and security for costs.

The court also held that Glen Salzman, as executor, had the authority to waive solicitor-client privilege on behalf of the estate for the purpose of his costs motion, as he was not adverse in interest to the estate on that issue.