S. Steven Sands

The appellants appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice regarding the estate of Nadia Wyszatko.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal but made a minor variation to remove Richard Wyszatko's liability for a loan, interest, and legal fees.

The respondent was successful on the appeal and sought costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondent and declined to hold the non-party appellant liable for costs.

The appellants appealed an application judge's decision resolving multiple issues regarding an estate and family marina business, including the repayment of a loan and the payment of occupation rent.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding errors in the application judge's findings of fact or her award of costs.

The appeal was dismissed, save for a minor variation to the formal judgment to clarify that only the estate, not the appellant personally, was liable for the loan repayment.

Trial of 12 issues concerning the estate of Nadia Wyszatko, which had remained unadministered for over a decade due to sibling disputes.

The applicant, Julia, sought repayment of loans made to the estate, compensation for acting as Litigation Administrator, and orders regarding the estate's assets, including a marina property.

The court found that Julia was entitled to repayment of her loans and compensation.

The court also held that the respondent, Richard, who had taken control of the marina business and co-mingled funds, was liable for occupation rent and was not entitled to executor compensation.

The court ordered the sale of the property to satisfy the estate's debts and directed the parties to propose an independent third-party estate trustee.

The plaintiffs, Robert and Donna Van Nispen, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking payment of the outstanding purchase price for a business sold to the defendant, McCarron & Chobotiuk Financial Services Inc., and dismissal of the defendant's counterclaim.

The defendant alleged breach of contract, client solicitation, and breach of fiduciary duty by the plaintiffs.

The court found no credible evidence to support the defendant's claims of client diversion or breach of fiduciary duty.

The defendant failed to present sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue requiring a trial, despite opportunities to file additional material.

Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was granted, and the counterclaim was dismissed.

The applicants, adult children of Hilda Anne Willis, brought a motion seeking declarations of their mother's incapacity and their appointment as guardians for her property and personal care, as well as financial disclosure from her husband, David Joseph Burgie.

The court found Ms. Willis, an 86-year-old with dementia, incapable of managing her property and personal care.

However, it declined to appoint the applicants as guardians.

For property, the court noted a subsisting Power of Attorney in favour of Danny Willis, making a guardianship order unnecessary.

For personal care, the court ordered Ms. Willis to return to her home under Mr. Burgie's care, supplemented by at least three hours of daily homecare, finding that Mr. Burgie's care was not irresponsible, though needing supplementation.

The application was adjourned, and costs were to be addressed by written submissions if no agreement was reached.

Following a ruling on motions by both parties involving custody and child support, the parties were unable to resolve the issue of costs.

Both parties had delivered Rule 18 offers to settle.

The court found that success on the principal issues of child support and parenting was divided.

Consequently, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

On competing interim motions in a family law proceeding, the responding party sought temporary sole custody, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, child support, and an interim disbursement, while the other party sought a nesting arrangement allowing the children to remain in the home with parents alternating residence weekly.

The court considered the best interests of the children under s. 24 of the Family Law Act and the practical implications of a nesting arrangement, including cost, housing availability, and stability for the children.

The court found the proposed nesting arrangement impractical and potentially destabilizing, particularly due to financial strain and the likely loss of a long-standing caregiver.

Balancing the statutory factors and the children’s interests, the court granted the mother temporary exclusive possession of the matrimonial home while maintaining interim joint custody and equal parenting time.