V. Ross Morrison

The applicant sought an order declaring a holograph codicil to be a valid testamentary document.

The deceased had written the codicil entirely in her own hand and wrote her name in the attestation clause, but left blanks for the date and the executor's name.

The court found that while the document was wholly handwritten, the deceased did not intend her handwritten name in the attestation clause to serve as her signature to give legal effect to the document.

The application was dismissed, and the codicil was not admitted to probate.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action alleging undue influence and coercion in the transfer of an investment portfolio and real property.

The defendants also sought summary judgment on their counterclaim for defamation.

The court found that there were serious issues of credibility and conflicting evidence that could not be resolved on the documentary record.

The court declined to use its fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04, concluding that a full trial was necessary to assess witness demeanour and the human dynamics involved.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed with costs awarded to the responding parties.

A real estate brokerage sought commission after the seller refused to complete a residential sale despite entering an agreement of purchase and sale.

The seller argued the brokerage was not entitled to commission because its agent failed to disclose an existing buyer agency relationship with the purchasers before presenting the offer, contrary to the listing agreement and fiduciary duties.

The court held that the agent failed to make the required written disclosure of the dual agency relationship prior to presenting the offer.

This non‑disclosure constituted a material breach of the listing agreement and the agent’s fiduciary obligations.

As a result, the brokerage was disentitled from recovering commission under the agreement.

The moving parties sought to quash the opposing parties’ attempt to revive and schedule a previously raised motion concerning an alleged breach of a Mareva injunction.

The earlier trial reasons and subsequent appellate decision left unresolved whether the injunction had been breached.

The court found that the trial judge had deferred the issue and that a later email from the trial judge declining to amend the judgment did not constitute a formal endorsement or order under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Given the absence of a final adjudication and the lack of reasons, the issue remained open.

The court exercised its discretion to permit the matter to proceed so the alleged breach of the Mareva injunction could be determined.