Stacey Blydorp

The plaintiff, the deceased's spouse of 20 years, brought a dependant's support claim under Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The deceased's Will left 40% of the residue of his estate to the plaintiff and 60% to three of his adult children.

The plaintiff argued this provision was inadequate to maintain her accustomed lifestyle and sought the entirety of the estate.

The court found that the deceased did not make adequate provision for the plaintiff's proper support.

After analyzing expert evidence on the plaintiff's lifestyle expenses and life expectancy, the court ordered a lump sum payment of $2,556,871.00 (or 40% of the final residue, whichever is greater) to provide for her housing and future needs, while preserving the deceased's testamentary intention to benefit his children.

The moving parties, Henia Gefen and Harvey Gefen, sought a review of a single judge's dismissal of their motions to stay a motion judge's order.

The underlying order had declared Henia Gefen incapable of managing her property and instructing counsel, appointing a litigation guardian.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the review motions, finding no legal error or misapprehension of evidence in the single judge's decision.

The court also addressed costs, fixing Harry Gefen's costs at $5,000 and ordering Ronald B. Moldaver, K.C., Henia Gefen's counsel, to bear personal responsibility for costs related to the review motion he brought on her behalf without authority, disallowing him from charging Henia Gefen for these costs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard a motion for a stay of a lower court order pending appeal.

The lower court had appointed a litigation guardian and guardian of property for an incapable 100-year-old individual, removed her counsel, and ordered costs.

The moving parties (the incapable individual and her son) sought to stay this order.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay, finding no serious issue to be tried regarding the incapacity finding or the guardian's appointment, especially given prior findings of unconscionable procurement of assets by the son.

The court also found no irreparable harm would be suffered by denying the stay, as the appointed guardian is accountable to the court.

The balance of convenience favored allowing the lower court's order to take effect.

Consequently, the motion for a stay was dismissed.