Zara Wong

The applicants challenged the validity of a purported will dated September 10, 2020, allegedly made by Kenneth Ryan Hill, a wealthy status Indian and permanent resident of the Six Nations of the Grand River Reserve.

The will named the respondent, Mr. Hill's son, as executor and left his interest in Grand River Enterprises (worth approximately $38 million) to him, with bequests of $5 million to each of his other children (except two who received nothing or $3 million).

The applicants argued that Mr. Hill did not sign the will and did not know and approve of its contents.

The court found that the respondent failed to establish that Mr. Hill signed the purported will and that suspicious circumstances surrounded its execution.

The court also found that the respondent failed to prove that Mr. Hill knew and approved of the will's contents.

The purported will was declared invalid both under the Indian Act and at common law.

This case involves an application concerning the administration of Joseph Holmes' estate, specifically addressing the approval of a settlement and the passing over of Gary Holmes as co-estate trustee.

The court found that ongoing conflict between the co-estate trustees, Gary and Jacqueline Holmes, Gary's past conduct as attorney for property, and the resulting delays and expenses prevented the proper administration of the estate.

The court approved the Minutes of Settlement, which resolved previous disputes regarding Gary's accounts as attorney for property, and ordered Gary to be passed over as estate trustee, appointing Jacqueline as the sole estate trustee.

Grand River Enterprises Six Nations Ltd. (GRE) appealed an order from the Superior Court of Justice requiring it, as a non-party, to produce financial documents for the valuation of shares held by a deceased in estates litigation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motions judge's discretionary decision.

The court found the documents relevant to the estate's valuation and the validity of the deceased's will, and that it would be unfair to proceed to trial without them.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motions judge's application of the Rule 30.10 test, emphasizing deference to the lower court's discretion and the effectiveness of the established Confidentiality Protocol in addressing GRE's concerns about privacy and business interests.

In a will challenge and dependants' support proceeding, the moving parties sought production of financial records from Grand River Enterprises Six Nations Ltd. (GRE), a third-party corporation in which the deceased held a 12.5% interest, and leave to examine two non-parties regarding the deceased's will.

The court granted both motions, finding that the financial records were relevant to valuing the estate and assessing the testamentary sense of the will, and that the non-parties possessed relevant information not obtainable elsewhere.

The applicant, acting as guardian of property for her incapable spouse, brought an application to pass her accounts.

The Public Guardian and Trustee objected to several categories of expenses, including unsupported expenses for the sale of a property, unknown credit card payments and transfers from a joint account, pre-guardianship medical expenses, and past legal fees.

The court found that the applicant breached her fiduciary duty by failing to provide vouchers for many expenses and commingling funds.

The applicant was ordered to reimburse the incapable person's estate for the unsupported expenses and transfers, though she was permitted a partial set-off for expenses incurred in Greece immediately following the spouse's accident.

The applicant was also ordered to pay costs personally.

The applicant ex-spouse sought a declaration for the proceeds of the deceased's Locked-in Retirement Account (LIRA) based on a 1997 beneficiary designation.

The respondent estate and parents opposed, relying on a 2001 designation changing the beneficiary to the parents, of which only a photocopy could be found, and a 2005 final matrimonial release.

The court dismissed the application, finding the 2001 photocopy was a valid instrument under the Succession Law Reform Act that revoked the 1997 designation.

Furthermore, the 2005 matrimonial settlement and release precluded the applicant's claim, and awarding her the LIRA would result in unjust enrichment.