W. Jackson

The Applicant sought substantial indemnity costs against the self-represented Respondent in complex estate litigation that had been case-managed for years.

The estate was simple, but the Respondent's conduct, including unsubstantiated allegations of fraud, repeated attempts to relitigate resolved issues, and delaying tactics, unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings.

The court found the Applicant almost entirely successful on substantive issues and determined that the Respondent's conduct was reprehensible, warranting an award of substantial indemnity costs.

The court rejected the Respondent's arguments that costs should be paid from the estate or that her self-represented status or disability should mitigate the award, finding her conduct abusive and meritless.

This endorsement addresses outstanding issues in the administration of a deceased's estate, which has been ongoing since 2011.

The court convened a hearing to finalize the estate winding-up and payment of funds.

The primary issues addressed were the respondent's attempts to re-litigate previously decided matters concerning the sale of the estate's property and the identification of creditors, alleged errors in tax returns, and directions for payments to the accountant and Canada Revenue Agency.

The court dismissed the respondent's attempts to re-open issues regarding the property title and creditors, deeming them an abuse of process, and rejected claims of tax return deficiencies.

The court ordered immediate payments to the accounting firm for tax preparation and to the Canada Revenue Agency for taxes owing.

It also confirmed final adjustments to the estate accounts and set a timetable for costs submissions for various case management hearings.

In an ongoing estate dispute between siblings, the self-represented defendant sought to introduce late documentation and requested broad document production from the plaintiff on the eve of trial.

The case management judge dismissed the requests, finding the proposed documents were irrelevant, attempted to re-litigate previously decided issues, and lacked proportionality.

The court noted the defendant had been provided significant accommodations and indulgences, but the requests appeared designed to delay the trial.

This decision provides further directions in an ongoing estates matter concerning the estate of Terrence Blanks.

The court addressed the disposition of funds held in trust by an interested party, Mr. MacKenzie, and the resolution of his account.

Key issues included the procedural status of the defendant's counsel, Mr. Mercer, who had filed a factum but was not formally on record, and the appropriate mechanism for proving Mr. MacKenzie's account.

The court expressed concerns about initiating a separate proceeding for the account, preferring to retain jurisdiction within the existing case management.

A proposal from the plaintiff to assign any chose in action against Mr. MacKenzie to the defendant was put forward for future argument.

This is a case management decision in an estates matter concerning the estate of Terrence Blanks, providing directions on several outstanding issues.

The court addressed the removal of estate trustees, the disposition of estate chattels (Rolex watch and ring), the management of a lawyer's trust account and associated fees, and the procedural timetable for various claims including debts, trustee compensation, and occupation rent.

The court ordered a process for sealed bids on chattels, deferred a decision on the lawyer's account pending disclosure, directed the lawyer to pay trust funds into court, set a detailed schedule for particulars and production for future trial issues, and approved interim disbursements of $25,000 to each beneficiary.

This decision addresses multiple motions for directions in an estate dispute between two siblings, Brian Blanks and Carol Roberts, who are co-trustees and beneficiaries of their deceased father's estate.

Ms. Roberts, as a moving party, sought a formal investigation into the 2016 sale of the estate's house, alleging impropriety, fraud, and improvidence based on a series of coincidences and transactions.

She also moved to strike portions of Mr. Blanks' affidavit on various evidentiary grounds and sought to introduce new evidence.

The court dismissed Ms. Roberts' request for an investigation, finding no factual basis for fraud or improvidence and noting the prohibitive costs.

Her motion to strike Mr. Blanks' affidavit was largely denied, with only a minor portion related to settlement privilege being struck.

The court also denied her application to re-open the hearing to introduce new evidence, finding it would not affect the outcome and was discoverable earlier.

An immediate payment of an outstanding inheritance to a grandchild was ordered by consent.

Remaining issues, including the disposition of a Rolex watch and ring and the potential removal of a trustee, were deferred for a future hearing.

Michael Sapiano was charged with aggravated assault against Kenneth Kotzan, claiming self-defence.

The court heard testimony from the complainant, an independent witness (Maxine Kidd), and the accused.

The court found the accused's testimony lacked credibility due to animosity towards the complainant, a criminal record for dishonesty, and direct contradictions by the independent witness.

Despite some inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, it was largely corroborated by the independent witness on critical issues.

The court concluded that the Crown proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, rejecting the self-defence claim, and found the accused guilty of aggravated assault.