Terry Hainsworth

Following a successful motion by the estate trustee to set aside $100,000 from an estate for anticipated legal fees, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The moving party sought over $10,000 in costs, which the responding party argued were excessive.

The court applied the reasonableness principles under the Family Law Rules and reduced the claimed fees, disallowing a substantial Westlaw research disbursement due to lack of evidence that it represented a proper out‑of‑pocket expense.

The court awarded a reduced lump sum costs amount and ordered that payment be deferred until the proceeding is finally resolved.

The decision also clarifies that a losing party is not required to file a bill of costs when challenging the opposing party’s claim.

An estate trustee brought a motion seeking authorization to set aside estate funds to pay anticipated legal fees incurred in defending a surviving spouse’s claim for equalization of net family property.

The respondent argued that the trustee should personally fund the litigation because he was also a beneficiary and the estate assets might be insufficient to satisfy a potential equalization payment.

The court reaffirmed the long‑standing principle that trustees are entitled to indemnification from estate assets for reasonably incurred legal expenses in the administration and defence of the estate, including litigation expenses.

The existence of a co‑existing interest as beneficiary did not defeat the trustee’s right to indemnity.

The court authorized $100,000 to be set aside from the estate for legal fees subject to oversight and without prejudice to the respondent’s right to challenge reimbursement at trial.

The applicant estate trustee brought a motion to dismiss the family law proceeding for delay.

The respondent surviving spouse brought a cross-motion to suspend the administration of the estate to preserve assets for a potential equalization payment.

The court dismissed the applicant's request for a trial of an issue, finding the motion straightforward.

The court dismissed the motion for delay, noting that both parties contributed to the delay and there was no substantial risk to a fair trial.

The court granted the respondent's motion, ordering the estate to retain $2.2 million to secure her potential equalization claim, which included a potential interest in a $6.6 million settlement from a Florida lawsuit.

In a matrimonial proceeding involving ownership of a cottage property, the moving parties sought to add Legal Aid Ontario as a party because it had registered liens against the property to secure legal aid services provided to one spouse.

The court considered the test under Rule 7(5) of the Family Law Rules for adding a party.

It held that a person will generally only be added if they are a necessary party and if an order can be made for or against them, although the court retains a narrow discretion to add parties without a legal interest in exceptional circumstances.

Because no order could be made for or against Legal Aid Ontario, it had no involvement in the underlying matrimonial dispute, and no unusual or egregious circumstances existed, the court declined to add it as a party.