Susan E. Greer

On a contested passing of accounts, the court considered the compensation claimed by an estate trustee during litigation for administering a complex estate over several years involving extensive litigation, missing assets, and the unwinding of a corporate entity owned by the estate.

One charitable beneficiary objected to aspects of the trustee’s compensation, including the application of percentage fees on large capital transactions and the treatment of accounting fees.

The court accepted certain accounting adjustments and deductions but declined to reduce the trustee’s compensation in light of the extraordinary complexity of the estate administration and the significant recovery work undertaken.

A special fee was also awarded for the additional effort required to wind up the corporate estate asset.

The court further determined the outstanding legal fees payable to counsel for several charitable beneficiaries and ordered costs on the passing of accounts.

A respondent moved to set aside an ex parte Certificate of Pending Litigation registered against a property following the death of the applicant’s son, who had lived in the property with the respondent spouse but was not on title.

The estate alleged that the respondent held an interest in the property subject to constructive or resulting trust arising from the deceased’s financial contributions to the home during the marriage.

The court held that the CPL should be discharged to permit the pending sale to close, but found a serious issue to be tried regarding the estate’s equitable claim to a portion of the respondent’s share of the proceeds.

As a result, the court ordered that the respondent’s one‑third share of the net proceeds be paid into court pending further determination of the estate’s claim.

A treating psychiatrist brought an interim motion under s. 19 of the Health Care Consent Act, 1996 seeking authorization to administer treatment pending the patient’s appeal from a Consent and Capacity Board decision finding her incapable of consenting to treatment.

Evidence showed the patient had ceased taking prescribed medications, resulting in escalating aggressive behaviour, seclusion, and clinical deterioration.

The court considered the statutory criteria for treatment pending appeal, including whether the treatment would substantially improve the patient’s condition, whether the benefits outweighed the risks, and whether the treatment was the least intrusive option.

The court found the statutory test met for administration of a mood stabilizing medication but declined to authorize antipsychotic medication pending the expedited appeal hearing.

An interim order was granted requiring administration of the mood stabilizing drug until the appeal was determined.

The applicant and the deceased lived together as common-law spouses for 12 years.

The deceased, a wealthy car dealership owner, executed new wills shortly before her death that left her entire estate to her daughter and various trusts, making no provision for the applicant.

The applicant brought a claim for dependant's relief under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The court found that the deceased failed to make adequate provision for the applicant's proper support, noting her legal and moral obligations to him.

The court ordered the transfer of a $1.2 million home to the applicant, a tax-free capital payment of $100,000 per year for life, and $50,000 every five years for a vehicle.

A physician brought a motion seeking authorization to administer psychiatric treatment to a hospitalized patient pending the patient’s appeal from a Consent and Capacity Board decision finding her incapable of consenting to treatment.

The motion was brought under s.19 of the Health Care Consent Act, 1996.

The court reviewed extensive clinical evidence documenting the patient’s deteriorating mental and physical condition, including escalating psychosis, delusions, hallucinations, refusal of food, and significant weight loss after discontinuing medication.

The court held that all criteria under s.19(2) were satisfied: treatment was likely to substantially improve the patient’s condition, the benefits outweighed risks, the treatment was the least intrusive option, and urgent treatment was necessary before the appeal could be heard.

The court therefore authorized interim treatment pending the appeal.

Following a successful motion by the applicant in matrimonial litigation to add additional parties, the court addressed costs on written submissions.

The respondents and proposed respondents had vigorously opposed the motion to add parties and argued that each party should bear their own costs or that costs should be reserved to the trial judge.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the principles governing costs articulated in Fong v. Chan, the court held that the successful party was presumptively entitled to costs.

The court found the applicant wholly successful and awarded substantial indemnity costs, subject to proportionality considerations and adjustments to the claimed amount.

Costs totalling $43,586.07 were fixed and apportioned among the former husband and the newly added parties.

Following a family law trial where the applicant obtained judgment in his favour, the court addressed unresolved issues regarding costs years after the trial due to former counsel’s failure to take out the formal judgment or submit a bill of costs.

The court examined whether a solicitor’s late lump‑sum account without dockets or contemporaneous records complied with s. 2(3) of the Solicitors Act and whether such costs could be fixed or recovered.

The judge found the nearly five‑year delay in rendering an account, combined with the absence of supporting documentation, rendered the account unreasonable and prejudicial.

Exercising discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Family Law Rules, the court fixed partial indemnity costs for earlier counsel’s properly documented accounts but refused any costs for trial counsel.

The applicants, the son and daughter-in-law of the incapable respondent, brought an application for the passing of accounts and the removal of the respondent's daughter as joint attorney for property.

The court found that the daughter had improperly taken funds from her mother's accounts for her personal use and had failed to provide a proper accounting as ordered.

The court ordered the daughter to repay $21,133.12 to her mother's estate, removed her as joint attorney for property, and refused to pass her accounts.

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim spousal support, child support, and other relief, seeking to set aside the spousal support waiver in the parties' marriage contract.

The parties separated after a 30-year marriage during which they enjoyed a lavish lifestyle, and the respondent husband's net worth grew to approximately $500 million.

The court found the marriage contract's support waiver to be unconscionable and severed it from the agreement.

The court ordered the respondent to pay interim spousal support of $175,000 per month, retroactive to the date of separation, and to maintain life insurance and health benefits for the applicant.

The claim for interim child support was dismissed.

The court considered whether a former estate trustee who had previously been imprisoned for civil contempt had purged that contempt by accounting for missing estate assets.

Forensic accounting reports revealed extensive unexplained withdrawals, questionable transactions, and missing securities from an estate once valued at approximately $30 million.

The responding party failed to provide a full explanation for the disappearance of assets and demonstrated little effort to comply with prior court orders requiring disclosure.

Although the court concluded the contempt had not been purged, it determined that further imprisonment would not serve the public interest and that additional accounting would be futile.

The order requiring the passing of accounts was withdrawn and the contempt issue brought to an end.

The applicant husband brought a motion seeking authorization to obtain a $350,000 line of credit secured against jointly owned matrimonial properties or, alternatively, an order compelling the respondent wife to cooperate with refinancing or the sale of the cottage property.

The husband sought the funds to complete the purchase of a new home with his partner.

The court held it lacked authority to compel a jointly owning spouse to encumber matrimonial property and found that granting the requested relief could prejudice the respondent’s property and support rights under the Family Law Act.

The court also declined to order partition and sale of the cottage prior to trial because doing so could prejudice unresolved equalization and support claims.

The motion and amended motion were dismissed, leaving issues regarding sale of the properties to the trial judge.

The mother brought a motion for interim sole custody, supervised access for the father, and an order for a parenting assessment.

The father cross-moved for unsupervised access and shared custody.

The court found a history of domestic violence and high conflict, with the father demonstrating an inability to control his anger and verbal abuse in front of the children.

The court granted the mother interim sole custody, ordered a parenting assessment by Dr. Butkowsky, and granted the father unsupervised access on weekdays but continued supervised access on Saturdays for one month while he enrolls in an anger management course.

The affidavit of the father's sister was struck for containing hearsay.

In a long-running family law dispute following a marriage breakdown, the moving party sought to add several individuals, corporations, and family trusts as respondents to address alleged corporate oppression, trust administration issues, and unresolved financial interests linked to matrimonial property and a family trust.

The court considered whether the claims relating to corporate entities and a trust should be addressed within the family law proceeding or separately on the Commercial or Estates lists.

Applying the Family Law Rules and principles regarding the addition of parties, the court held that the issues were sufficiently interconnected with the matrimonial litigation.

Adding the entities and trustee would promote efficiency and avoid duplicative proceedings.

The motion to add several corporate entities, a trust, and an individual as respondents was granted, while requests to add two other proposed parties lacking a direct connection were dismissed.

A father appealed a summary judgment order of the Ontario Court of Justice that made two children crown wards without access for the purpose of adoption in a child protection proceeding.

The father argued the motions judge misapplied the summary judgment test and that a triable issue existed regarding reunification.

The Superior Court held that the correct legal test had been applied and that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The record showed long-standing concerns about the father’s judgment, instability, criminal conduct, and inability to provide safe parenting.

The appeal was dismissed and the crown wardship order remained in effect.

In a family law trial proceeding on an uncontested basis, the applicant father sought final sole custody of the parties’ young child after the respondent mother removed the child from Canada and relocated to the United States.

The child was eventually located and returned to Canada following court orders and enforcement assistance.

Evidence included an Office of the Children’s Lawyer s.112 report, testimony from CAS workers, and other witnesses regarding parenting capacity and family history.

The court found the father was presently able to provide a stable home environment while the mother had demonstrated instability and decision‑making inconsistent with the child’s best interests.

Sole custody was granted to the father with the mother limited to supervised in‑person access and structured electronic contact.

The applicant brought an emergency motion for temporary custody of two young children following a recent separation and an incident that resulted in the applicant being removed from the matrimonial home by police.

The respondent opposed the motion on the basis that the matter was not urgent.

The court found urgency under Rule 14(4.2) of the Family Law Rules due to the abrupt separation of the children from their primary caregiver and the infant’s dependence on breastfeeding.

Considering the best interests of the children and the applicant’s role as primary caregiver, the court ordered that temporary custody be transferred to the applicant.

The respondent was granted generous access and further steps in the proceeding were directed, including an early case conference and financial disclosure.

Following a 16‑year marriage, the applicant sought divorce, custody arrangements, sale of the matrimonial home, and equalization of property.

The respondent sought sole custody, spousal support, exclusive possession of the home, and unequal division of net family property.

The court determined the parties separated in July 2009 and ordered the sale of the heavily mortgaged matrimonial home under the Partition Act.

Joint custody of the twins was ordered with a staged parenting schedule based on a s.30 assessment under the Children’s Law Reform Act, while the eldest child could arrange her own schedule.

The court attributed income of $536,000 to the applicant for support purposes, ordered child support of $5,000 monthly (interim pending review), and spousal support of $10,016 monthly.

The respondent was also granted an unequal equalization adjustment due to dissipation of assets.

The applicant brought a contempt motion alleging the respondent breached an access order by failing to facilitate the children’s counselling and access visits.

The court found the respondent deliberately and wilfully disobeyed the order and held her in contempt, emphasizing that a primary residential parent must actively facilitate court‑ordered access.

On a second motion concerning parenting arrangements, the court considered allegations of parental alienation and the best interests of the children under the Divorce Act.

The court ordered joint interim custody and significantly increased the father’s parenting time with one child through a week‑on, week‑off schedule, while maintaining the existing access framework for the other child with some modifications.

Interim child support was ordered to continue.

The moving party sought to terminate or reduce spousal support following retirement from employment due to alleged illness and disability, and also requested termination of a life insurance obligation securing the support.

The court considered whether retirement and changes in income constituted a material change in circumstances under s. 17(4.1) of the Divorce Act.

Despite retirement, the court found the payor’s financial position had improved and remained significantly stronger than the recipient’s, who continued to face financial hardship after a long-term marriage.

The court held that no material change had occurred and rejected arguments relating to alleged double recovery from the payor’s pension.

The application to terminate or reduce spousal support and remove the insurance obligation was dismissed.

Following a successful civil trial involving breaches of fiduciary duty and breach of trust relating to trust property, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful party sought substantial indemnity costs based on the defendants’ conduct throughout the litigation, including dishonesty, destruction or concealment of key financial records, and failure to comply with interlocutory cost orders.

The court applied the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality and considered offers to settle and litigation conduct.

Finding the defendants’ behaviour reprehensible and a clear breach of fiduciary obligations, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs.

Liability for costs was apportioned so that two defendants were jointly and severally responsible for four‑fifths of the award, with the remaining defendant responsible for one‑fifth.