Sophie Sauvé

The applicant mother sought the sale and equal division of a co-owned property with her son, the respondent.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking a declaration that the applicant's interest was held in trust for him and a transfer of title without consideration, arguing unjust enrichment.

The court dismissed the applicant's request for sale, finding her conduct malicious, oppressive, and vexatious, and that a sale would result in unjust enrichment for her.

The court declared the applicant's 50% interest in the property to be held in constructive trust for the respondent and ordered its transfer to him.

The respondent's claim for damages related to the applicant's refusal to refinance was dismissed due to his delay in seeking relief.

This decision concerns the costs arising from a dispute between the estate of Laurette Larivière and her son, Conrad Larivière.

The original applications involved claims by the estate regarding funds, accounting, and a life insurance policy, and counter-claims by Conrad for compensation for care and reimbursement of funeral expenses.

The court found that Conrad had substantial success in the underlying applications, particularly in retaining life insurance proceeds and securing reimbursement for funeral expenses, while the estate's claims for accounting and compensation against Conrad were largely rejected.

Consequently, the court awarded Conrad partial indemnity costs.

This endorsement concerns costs arising from two applications related to an estate: an application for directions by the testamentary trustee (Mr. Cardinal) and an application for passing of accounts by the estate trustee (Mrs. Perreault).

The court found that Mr. Cardinal was entitled to costs for his initial application due to Mrs. Perreault's resistance to providing an accounting.

However, Mr. Cardinal's subsequent allegations of bad faith and misappropriation against Mrs. Perreault were unfounded and reprehensible.

Mrs. Perreault was largely successful in defending her accounting, despite some reductions in claimed expenses.

The court awarded Mr. Cardinal $18,000 in costs and Mrs. Perreault $48,000 in costs, resulting in a net award of $30,000 to Mrs. Perreault, payable personally by Mr. Cardinal due to his unfounded allegations.

The parties were unable to settle the terms of a formal Order following a previous decision regarding the administration of an estate.

The principal disagreements related to the compensation allowed for the respondent as Attorney and whether HST was payable.

The court fixed the respondent's compensation at $22,967.39 inclusive of HST, noting that any overpayments already received must be deducted from this amount, and provided directions for costs submissions.