Ziad Yehia

This case involved two consolidated applications concerning the Estate of William R. Harper.

The primary dispute was over the beneficiary designation of a Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP) and a Life Income Fund (LIF) held with National Bank Financial Inc. (NBF).

Erin Forsyth claimed to be the beneficiary of both, based on a disputed beneficiary designation form.

Dona Jean Murphy, as Estate Trustee, argued the Estate was the beneficiary and challenged Forsyth's designation on grounds of undue influence and lack of capacity.

The court found the disputed form valid for the RRSP only, designating Forsyth as beneficiary, and dismissed claims of undue influence and lack of capacity.

The LIF was determined to be part of the Estate.

Mohammad Akram, an incapable person with substantial property, had The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company appointed as interim guardian.

Due to persistent family disputes and non-cooperation, the interim guardian moved for its removal, the appointment of the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT), and approval of its compensation and indemnification for legal fees.

The court determined it lacked authority to appoint the PGT as guardian without the PGT's consent and a formal application, especially since other family members expressed willingness to act.

The court denied the immediate removal of the interim guardian but varied the existing Order Giving Directions to establish a structured timetable for the appointment of a permanent guardian and mandatory mediation.

The court granted the interim guardian permission to pre-take compensation and indemnify itself for legal fees, and appointed the PGT as litigation guardian for the purpose of passing accounts.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Justice.

The appeal involved four consolidated actions concerning personal liability of corporate directors and officers in the context of real estate development and mortgage transactions.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's conclusions on the legal issue of personal liability based on pleaded allegations and legal principles.

The costs decision addresses the appropriate costs awards for the successful and unsuccessful parties across the multiple appeals.

The defendants, a law firm and lawyer, brought a motion to temporarily stay a negligence action against them.

The plaintiffs, estate trustees, had sued the defendants for allegedly negligent advice regarding a share transfer to a charitable foundation, which led to a significant tax liability after a Canada Revenue Agency reassessment.

The plaintiffs had also appealed this reassessment to the Tax Court of Canada.

The court granted the temporary stay, finding a substantial overlap of issues and factual background between the negligence action and the tax appeal.

It concluded that the outcome of the tax appeal would significantly influence, if not be determinative of, the negligence claim, and that a stay would avoid unnecessary and costly duplication of judicial and legal resources without causing significant prejudice to the plaintiffs' access to justice.

Four consolidated class actions brought by small investors who invested in syndicated mortgages promoted by Fortress Real Capital Inc. and Fortress Real Developments Inc. The investors alleged misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and negligence.

The motion judge struck claims against individual respondents Jawad Rathore and Vincenzo Petrozza, and dismissed claims to enforce syndicated mortgages against Empire Pace (1088 Progress) Ltd. and ADI Developments entities.

The appellants appealed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of personal claims against Rathore and Petrozza but reversed the dismissal of mortgage enforcement claims against Empire Pace and ADI, finding that the motion judge erred in applying Rule 21 to matters requiring evidentiary findings regarding contract interpretation and disclosure.

Following a successful pleadings motion that struck the claims against the defendant Empire Pace without leave to amend, the defendant sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $60,000.

The plaintiff argued the amount was excessive and suggested $25,000.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the defendant's costs should be limited by the plaintiff's own expected costs or by access to justice concerns, noting the defendant was removed from a complicated action.

The court fixed costs at $50,000 all inclusive.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action regarding her investment in a syndicated mortgage for a real estate development project.

The defendant developer, Empire Pace, brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the claims against it.

The court held that the plaintiff lacked standing to enforce the syndicated mortgage because she was not a signatory to the contract, which was deemed to be under seal pursuant to the Land Registration Reform Act.

Furthermore, the court found that a standstill provision in the mortgage precluded enforcement without the approval of the construction lender, which had not been obtained.

The claims against Empire Pace were struck out without leave to amend.