Shruthi Raman

The applicants challenged the validity of the deceased's 2019 and 2020 wills on grounds of undue influence and testamentary incapacity.

The respondents brought a motion arguing the applicants had not met the minimum evidentiary threshold (MET) required to challenge a will.

The court found that the applicants failed to establish the MET.

Medical evidence demonstrated the testator had no cognitive decline and was fully capable.

Evidence of undue influence was based on speculation and supposition rather than concrete facts.

The respondent's motion was granted and the applicants' motion for further production was dismissed.

This motion sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal in an estate matter.

The moving parties, two brothers, were one day late in filing their appeal materials.

The court considered the factors for granting an extension of time, including the intention to appeal, length and explanation for delay, prejudice to the respondent, and merits of the appeal.

The court found the explanation for delay unsatisfactory, no actual prejudice identified, and the proposed appeal grounds exceedingly weak, particularly regarding the discretionary decision to deny an adjournment.

Given the moving parties' history of uncooperative and delaying conduct in the underlying estate application, the court determined it was not in the interests of justice to grant the extension.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the moving parties on a substantial indemnity basis, to be offset against their share of the estate.

The applicant, claiming to be the common law spouse of the deceased, sought dependant support from the deceased's estate after the six-month limitation period had expired.

The estate trustees opposed the extension.

The court found that the bulk of the estate remained undistributed and there was no prejudice to the estate by the delay.

Applying the principles for extending the limitation period under section 61(2) of the Succession Law Reform Act, the court granted the extension, finding it proper to allow the application to proceed to trial to determine if adequate provision was made for the applicant.

The plaintiff, Priddle-Luck Professional Corporation, brought a motion for an interim interim interlocutory injunction seeking mandatory orders for the return of client information and disclosure of communications, and prohibitory injunctions against using goodwill/client lists and soliciting clients.

The motion arose from the sale of an accounting practice and subsequent competition.

The court applied the three-part test from RJR-MacDonald Inc. v Canada (serious issue, irreparable harm, balance of convenience) and noted the exceptional nature of mandatory and interlocutory injunctions.

The court found that the test had not been met at this preliminary stage due to significant divergence in evidence requiring further exploration.

Consequently, the motion was dismissed, and costs were reserved.

Following a 20-year traditional marriage, the parties disputed the respondent's income for support purposes, as he operated a sole proprietorship and deducted personal expenses to lower his taxable income.

The court imputed income to the respondent, including an income tax gross-up on unreported income, fixing his income at $215,000.

The court ordered retroactive child and spousal support back to September 1, 2012, finding the respondent's failure to proactively determine his true income blameworthy.

Ongoing spousal support was ordered at the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and secured by a life insurance policy.