Stephanie Turnham

The applicant beneficiary sought to remove her aunt as the estate trustee, alleging mismanagement, hostility, and the wrongful transfer of the deceased's vehicle to herself.

The court declined to remove the estate trustee, finding that her mistakes did not endanger the trust property and that removal is a remedy of last resort.

Instead, the court imposed terms on the trustee's future administration of the estate's real property.

However, the court found that the estate trustee failed to prove the deceased made a valid inter vivos gift of the vehicle, ordering its return to the estate.

The plaintiff developer brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser for failing to close an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential townhome.

The defendant failed to file responding materials and his request for an adjournment was denied as a delay tactic.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the defendant breached the agreement by failing to pay the balance due on closing.

Summary judgment was granted, allowing the plaintiff to retain the deposit and awarding damages for the loss of bargain and carrying costs, plus partial indemnity costs.

The respondent Estate Trustee brought a motion to clarify a prior Preservation Order to permit her to withdraw Estate funds to pay her legal and accounting fees incurred in defending an application to remove her as Estate Trustee.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Preservation Order explicitly restricted payments to legitimate taxes and liabilities, which did not include the trustee's personal legal fees in a dispute over her removal.

The court also extended the timeline for the passing of accounts.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to continue an interim Mareva injunction against the defendants following an aborted real estate transaction.

The plaintiffs also moved to file fresh evidence and for security for costs.

The court found the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case and a serious risk of asset dissipation, continuing the injunction against the defendants' real estate properties.

The motions to file fresh evidence and for security for costs were dismissed.

The plaintiffs sued Queens Walk Inc. and several individual defendants for breach of contract, inducing breach of contract, deceit, misrepresentation, and negligence related to a commercial condominium purchase agreement.

The individual defendants moved to strike all claims against them, and Queens Walk Inc. moved to strike the punitive damages claim.

The court granted the individual defendants' motion to strike all claims without leave to amend, finding no reasonable cause of action for personal liability.

The court also granted Queens Walk Inc.'s motion to strike the punitive damages claim, but with leave to amend, as the plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient material facts to support it.

A motion to review a lower court order dismissing a request for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.

The moving party, an experienced litigant acting in person, sought to appeal an order refusing permission to represent an estate and refusing to amend a statement of claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's dismissal, finding the moving party failed to provide adequate explanation for delay, the underlying order was interlocutory in nature, and the proposed appeal lacked merit.

The court also considered the moving party's history of non-compliance with costs orders in denying the extension.

The plaintiff sued his former solicitors for negligence.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action due to the plaintiff's considerable delays and non-compliance with court orders, including a consent order.

The plaintiff argued that dismissal was a draconian remedy and that non-compliance resulted from solicitor inadvertence and a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that dismissal was not yet justified given the preference for deciding cases on their merits and the plaintiff's substantial, albeit late, compliance.

However, the court imposed strict terms and a timetable for the plaintiff to advance the action, emphasizing it was a "last chance."

The appellants appealed an order that included a final declaration regarding the applicability of the Repair and Storage Liens Act, which was made during an interlocutory motion.

The Court of Appeal found that the declaration was not intended to be a final determination and deprived the appellants of a substantive defence at a preliminary stage.

Despite procedural errors by the appellants, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the declaration in the interest of justice, but awarded costs of the appeal to the respondent.

The defendant brought a motion to remove the plaintiff's lawyer of record, who was also the plaintiff's sister.

The underlying action involved allegations of professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against the defendant lawyer regarding a franchise purchase.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff's lawyer was present at a critical meeting where the documents were executed and independent legal advice was allegedly waived, making her a necessary witness.

Applying the Essa factors, the court found a strong likelihood that the lawyer would be called as a witness on highly contentious credibility issues.

The motion was granted and the lawyer was removed from the record.

The appellant was dismissed without cause from his employment as a senior vice-president and part-owner of the respondent company.

The trial judge awarded 5 months' pay in lieu of notice and fixed the share repurchase trigger date at the end of the notice period.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal increased the notice period to 9 months, finding the trial judge overemphasized short service and underemphasized the character of employment and availability of similar employment.

The Court also allowed the cross-appeal, holding that the share repurchase trigger date was the date of termination, not the end of the notice period.

Finally, the Court adjusted the trial costs order, finding that a second settlement offer revoked the first.

The applicant, a former officer of Nortel, sought judicial review to prohibit the Ontario Securities Commission from proceeding with a hearing against him.

He argued that the Commission's prior settlement with Nortel, which included admissions of misconduct by its managers, created a reasonable apprehension of bias against him.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify fragmenting the administrative proceedings before the Commission had an opportunity to consider the matter and hear evidence regarding the applicant's actual role.