Sheila Morris

An application concerning the validity of a will executed by the deceased on May 13, 2022.

The applicant, as estate trustee under a prior will, challenges the validity of the 2022 will on grounds of lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence.

The respondent propounds the 2022 will.

The court found suspicious circumstances sufficient to displace the presumption of validity, including prior findings of undue influence in a related powers of attorney proceeding, significant changes to the will's dispositive provisions, and evidence of cognitive impairment.

However, new evidence presented by the respondent and the deceased's daughter, which had not been tested through cross-examination, created conflicts requiring resolution at trial.

The court directed the matter to proceed to trial.

The appellant, an involuntary psychiatric patient diagnosed with a schizophrenic disorder, appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming he lacked capacity to consent to treatment with antipsychotic medication.

The appellant argued he was not provided adequate information about the treatment and that the Board failed to recognize his capacity fluctuated.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the Board made no palpable and overriding error.

The evidence supported the Board's conclusion that the appellant's inability to recognize his illness prevented him from appreciating the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the proposed treatment.

The applicant sought to invalidate powers of attorney (POAs) executed by Janina Jackiewicz in 2021, which appointed the respondent, Yolanta Zawadzinski, as attorney.

The applicant also sought to confirm the validity of earlier 2019 POAs, which appointed the applicant.

The court found suspicious circumstances surrounding the 2021 POAs, including Ms. Jackiewicz's diminished capacity and the respondent's undue influence, supported by a capacity assessment report.

The court declared the 2021 POAs invalid and the 2019 POAs valid and operative.

The respondent was ordered to provide an accounting of Ms. Jackiewicz's property managed since October 2021.

The applicants sought the appointment of an Inspector to investigate the management and affairs of two companies, Morris Kerbel Holdings Limited and Paladium Construction Limited, alleging oppressive and unfairly prejudicial conduct by the respondents under the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the applicants had not met the second and third parts of the three-part test for appointing an inspector, specifically regarding the necessity and appropriateness of such an extraordinary remedy given that information could be obtained through ordinary litigation tools like an oppression proceeding.

The court also noted concerns about the broad scope, unknown costs, and lack of company resources to fund the investigation.

Following a consent judgment resolving an estate dispute, the court determined the outstanding issues of costs and interest.

The respondent, an ODSP recipient, had sought to structure his inheritance to preserve his benefits, leading to a multi-year delay caused largely by the estate trustee's unreasonable insistence on compensation and costs.

The court awarded the respondent his costs of $27,800 payable from the residue of the estate.

Applying the common law rule of convenience, the court also awarded the respondent interest on his delayed $660,000 inheritance at a rate of 1% per annum from the one-year anniversary of the testator's death.

The plaintiff, acting through her litigation guardian, brought a motion for an order approving the sale of a property and preserving the net sale proceeds in trust pending further court order.

The defendants opposed the preservation of funds, seeking immediate payout.

The court found that there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the plaintiff's capacity at the time of previous property transfers and the validity of a trust declaration.

Given the defendants' breach of an undertaking and the risk of dissipation of funds, the court granted the preservation order under Rules 45.01 and 45.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, ordering the sale proceeds to be held in trust.