Tag: applications

07 May

How Important is it to Provide Evidence of Urgency During COVID-19?

Rebecca Rauws Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , , 0 Comments

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, pursuant to the Notice to the Profession, the courts are presently restricted to hearing mainly urgent matters. For civil and commercial matters, this includes “urgent and time-sensitive motions and applications in civil and commercial list matters, where immediate and significant financial repercussions may result if there is no judicial hearing.” There is also a broad ability for the court to hear any other matter that it deems necessary and appropriate to be heard on an urgent basis, but these matters will be strictly limited.

In a recent decision, Weidenfeld v Parikh-Shah, 2020 ONSC 2401, the court considered two urgent motions brought by the plaintiff and the defendants, respectively. The defendants sought to have monies that had been paid into court several years ago, paid out from court. The plaintiff sought, among other things, an order prohibiting the payment out of the monies. The decision did not provide details of the background of the litigation between the parties.

The court stated that the parties’ first step is to establish that their respective motions are, in fact, urgent. The court provided some guidance as to what is needed in this regard:

“The obligation is on the moving party to provide cogent, particular and specific evidence to show the court that the relief requested is urgent. Speculative, supposition or theoretical evidence is not good enough. The present environment and limited use of judicial resources mandate that the urgency must be real and immediate.”

Unfortunately for the parties in this case, the court found that their affidavit evidence did not provide cogent evidence to satisfy the court that the relief sought was urgent. The reason for which the defendants had brought the motion seeking to have money paid out of court was not set out in the decision.

The court did consider the category of urgent matters where “immediate and significant financial repercussions may result”, and specifically mentioned (a) matters that may put a person in financial jeopardy; (b) the funding of a business, business venture or construction project, failing which the financial viability of the project is in jeopardy; and (c) the necessity of a person to have resources to pay expenses or an order for the health and safety of a person; as issues that would meet the test of “immediate and significant financial repercussions”.

In the current circumstances, we are continually adjusting to new ways of doing things. This includes bringing court proceedings. Based on the Weidenfeld v Parikh-Shah decision, it is clear that parties will need to provide clear and sufficient evidence to satisfy the court as to the urgency of the matter in order for the court to hear the proceeding while court operations are restricted.

Thanks for reading,

Rebecca Rauws

 

You may also enjoy these other blog posts:

11 Oct

The Importance of Filing Comprehensive Management Plans

Nick Esterbauer Guardianship Tags: , , , , , , , 0 Comments

A decision released earlier this week highlights the importance of a complete Management Plan supported by evidence when seeking one’s appointment as guardian of property.

Sometimes, the necessity of filing a Management Plan is viewed as a formality without proper attention to the details of the plan.  However, the failure to file an appropriate Management Plan may prevent the appointment of a guardian of property, putting the administration of the incapable’s property in limbo.

In Connolly v Connolly and PGT, 2018 ONSC 5880 (CanLII), Justice Corthorn declined to approve of a Management Plan filed by the applicant and, accordingly, refused to appoint her as guardian of property.  The Management Plan was rejected for the following reasons (among others):

  • it did not address an anticipated increase in expenses over time (including when the applicant was no longer available to serve as the incapable’s caregiver and he may incur alternate housing costs);
  • there was no first-hand evidence from BMO Nesbitt Burns or Henderson Structured Settlement with respect to the net settlement funds in excess of $1.4M and their payout and investment in a portfolio on the incapable’s behalf;
  • the Court was concerned that stock market volatility could threaten to deplete the invested assets;
  • the Public Guardian and Trustee had strongly recommended that the applicant post security, the expense of which was reflected as a deduction from the incapable’s assets (while not suggested that this was unreasonable, Justice Corthorn took issue with the absence of any case law or statutory provision cited by the applicant in support of the payment of the expense by the incapable rather than the applicant herself); and
  • while the applicant had agreed to act as guardian without compensation, the plan did not contemplate how compensation would be funded if claimed by a potential successor guardian.

Notwithstanding that neither the incapable nor the Public Guardian and Trustee had opposed the Management Plan or the appointment of the applicant as guardian of property, Justice Corthorn found that the appointment of a guardian to manage over one million dollars in settlement funds was “contentious” and, accordingly, under Rule 39.01(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, direct evidence from a representative of the financial institution was required.  In short, although the applicant was accepted as being a suitable candidate for appointment as guardian of property (and it was anticipated by the Court that she would ultimately be appointed), the Court was not satisfied on the evidence available that the management of the incapable’s property in accordance with the contents of the Management Plan was consistent with the man’s best interests.

While Justice Corthorn declared the individual respondent incapable and in need of assistance by a guardian of property, Her Honour adjourned the balance of the matter, suggesting that the applicant’s appointment as guardian of property could be revisited once additional evidence was filed in support of the contents of the Management Plan and/or the plan was further revised.

Thank you for reading.

Nick Esterbauer

 

Other blog entries and podcasts that may be of interest:

04 Jun

The Decision of Justice Brown – Hull on Estates #165

Hull & Hull LLP Hull on Estates, Podcasts, Show Notes, Show Notes Tags: , , , , , , , , 0 Comments

Listen to The Decision of Justice Brown

This week on Hull on Estates, Ian Hull and Suzana Popovic-Montag discuss the recent decision of Re Pearsall.

In this decision, Justice Brown offers clarification on the issue of where applications involving estates may be commenced.

Paul Trudelle has  previously written a post about the decision.

If you have any comments, send us an email at hull.lawyers@gmail.com or leave a comment on our blog.

 

11 Nov

Multiple Wills Can Mean Multiple Certificates of Appointment

Hull & Hull LLP Estate & Trust, Litigation Tags: , , , , , , , 0 Comments

Primary and secondary wills are common enough situations for estates practitioners: one will for probate and the other for assets that can pass outside probate, to minimize estates administration taxes.  But what about situations with multiple wills requiring probate?

According to the October 8, 2008 endorsement of Mr. Justice Brown (court file no. 01-2725-08, no link available yet), where a testator makes 2 wills, each covering different assets, and each naming different executors, a local estates registrar can issue separate Certificates of Appointment of Estate Trustees to different executors limited to the assets referred to in each Will.

The endorsement closes with 2 "reminders" to applicants in multiple wills situations (I won’t paraphrase):…

READ MORE

01 Apr

Issues Causing Delay in the Granting of Probate – Hull on Estates #104

Hull & Hull LLP Hull on Estates, Podcasts, Wills Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 0 Comments

Listen to Delay in the Granting of Probate.

This week on Hull on Estates, David and Sarah discuss issues that cause delay in the granting of probate.

Comments?

Send us an email at hull.lawyers@gmail.com, call us on the comment line on 206-350-6636, or drop us a line on the Hull on Estates blog.

READ MORE

03 Apr

Tips for Controlling and Managing Estate Litigation – Hull on Estates Podcast #53

Hull & Hull LLP Hull on Estates, Hull on Estates Tags: , , , , , 0 Comments

Listen to "Tips for Controlling and Managing Estate Litigation"

Read the transcribed version of "Tips for Controlling and Managing Estate Litigation"

During Hull on Estates Episode #53, Craig Vander Zee and Bianca La Neve conclude their discussion on tips for controlling and managing estate litigation. They focus on the hearing of issues, applications vs. actions, oral discovery and mediation. 

Look in the Hull on Estates archives to find more podcasts on managing estate litigation.

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR BLOG

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
 

CONNECT WITH US

CATEGORIES

ARCHIVES

TWITTER WIDGET