Appleyard v. Zealand, just recently heard at the Ontario Court of Appeal, is an appeal concerning the question of whether an alleged dependant should have an unlimited right to pursue claims and objections against an estate, regardless of procedural misconduct and delay that amount to an abuse of process.
Background
Mr. Appleyard died in 2013. By his will, Mr. Appleyard divided his estate between his common law spouse and his two children with Ms. Appleyard. Ms. Appleyard is Mr. Appleyard’s former spouse and is not a beneficiary under Mr. Appleyard’s will. In his will, Mr. Appleyard appointed the respondent, Janice Zealand, to administer his estate.
At the time this matter was heard before the court, some 10 years after Mr. Appleyard’s death, the administration of the estate was not yet completed. There has been significant delay because of the myriad objections, motions, and appeals brought by Ms. Appleyard, some dating as far back as 2013. Although the three beneficiaries under Mr. Appleyard’s will had withdrawn any objections and did not object to the passing of the estate trustee’s accounts by Ms. Zealand as estate trustee, nor to her removal from that position, Ms. Appleyard persisted with her unsupported objections and allegations of misconduct against the estate trustee. She also brought various claims, intertwined with her objections, which were already determined in previous divorce and bankruptcy proceedings. Most importantly, notwithstanding several directions from the court, she refused to bring her claim for dependant support and other relief in the requisite form.
On Appeal
In this proceeding, Ms. Appleyard appealed from Justice Conlan’s order dismissing her unissued “Claim Against Estate” and “Return of Notice of Motion for Directions”, and granting $26,000 in costs Ms. Zealand as estate trustee. The order also required Ms. Appleyard to bring any claim in issued form against the estate within ninety calendar days after October 1, 2019, failing which she would be deemed to have abandoned any claim against the estate. She did not do so and did not seek a stay of the motion judge’s order.
On appeal, Ms. Appleyard submitted that the motion judge erred by failing to set aside and relying upon the administrative dismissal of her claims, dismissing the unissued claims she advanced on the motion before him, and requiring her to file an application for dependant support within ninety days of October 1, 2019, which she argued shortened the time for bringing such a claim under section 61(1) of the SLRA.
The estate trustee, on the other hand, submitted that Ms. Appleyard’s conduct of the proceedings was vexatious and amounted to an abuse of process that justified the dismissal of her proposed claims. The appeal judge, Justice Roberts, agreed and further opined that whether or not any limitation period had or had not expired was not the issue in this case and was irrelevant because Ms. Appleyard’s vexatious conduct amounted to an abuse of process. She noted that litigants cannot indefinitely hold the court process hostage. What was in issue was the reasonableness of the exercise of the motion judge’s inherent power to control and foreclose Ms. Appleyard’s ongoing abuse of the court’s process.
Justice Roberts notably stated that the court has a broad discretion to control its process and to make appropriate orders where, as is this case, proceedings have been conducted in a vexatious manner that amounts to an abuse of process. The court’s inherent and statutory powers to prevent an abuse of process are necessary to uphold the proper administration of the judicial system.
Justice Roberts therefore dismissed the appeal.
Thank you for reading.