Shawn McNamara

The applicants sought an order directing the estate trustees to pay them their designated shares of the deceased's RRIF and TFSA accounts.

The deceased had designated her four children as equal beneficiaries of the accounts, but later executed a Will containing a standard clause revoking all prior testamentary dispositions.

The court held that under s. 52(1) of the Succession Law Reform Act, a revocation in a Will is only effective if it relates expressly to the designation.

Finding that the standard revocation clause did not expressly reference the designations, the court concluded the designations were not revoked and ordered the funds distributed accordingly.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal a family arbitration award.

The parties had entered into a mediation/arbitration agreement.

After shuttle mediation failed, the arbitrator issued a decision based on information obtained during mediation without holding an arbitration hearing as required by the agreement.

The court found that the failure to hold a hearing where both parties could present and respond to each other's case constituted an error of law.

Leave to appeal was granted.

The estate of a deceased elderly woman alleged that the defendant, who was a non‑contributing joint bank account holder and caregiver, breached fiduciary duties by transferring funds from the joint account to herself as compensation.

The court found that although the defendant occupied a fiduciary role in managing the account and effectively acted as a trustee de son tort, the payments were authorized pursuant to a family agreement for caregiving services.

Evidence showed the deceased approved the arrangement while capable and that the attorney for property had knowledge of the payments.

The court held the compensation was reasonable in light of extensive caregiving and financial management services.

The estate’s claim for repayment and damages was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a civil claim alleging negligent police investigation and failure to test the contents of a needle that punctured the plaintiff while she was working at a women’s shelter.

The plaintiff alleged the police negligently failed to lay criminal charges and failed to arrange testing of the needle’s blood contents, causing prolonged anxiety about possible infection with communicable diseases.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and applied the summary judgment framework articulated in Hryniak v. Mauldin.

The evidence demonstrated the police had consulted Crown attorneys who advised there were no reasonable grounds to prosecute, and the police had no authority under the Mandatory Blood Testing Act, 2006 to compel testing.

Any failure to obtain testing was attributable to the plaintiff’s own inaction rather than negligence by the defendants.