Tag: court

12 Jul

Intervention: Trying to Get In The Game

Paul Emile Trudelle Beneficiary Designations, Estate & Trust, Estate Litigation, Estate Planning, Uncategorized Tags: , , , , 0 Comments

Sometimes, you are added as a party to a proceeding when you don’t really want to be. In other cases, a proceeding is started, and you are not a party, but want to be. What can be done about this? Intervention.

Under Rule 13.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a person who is not a party to a proceeding may move for leave to intervene as an added party if the person claims:

  1. an interest in the subject matter of the proceeding;
  2. that the person may be adversely affected by a judgment in the proceeding, or
  3. that there exists between the proposed intervenor and one or more of the parties a question of law or fact in common with one or more of the questions in issue in the proceeding.

Rule 13.01(2) adds another consideration. The court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the determination of the rights of the parties to the proceeding.

Intervention was considered in the decision of Arnold v. Arnold, 2019 ONSC 3679. There, the proceeding involved a Power of Attorney dispute between 3 of the incapable person’s children. The issue was whether a 2011 Power of Attorney, which appointed children 1, 2 and 3 as attorneys, governed or whether a 2019 Power of Attorney, which only appointed children 2 and 3 as attorneys governed.

The proposed intervenor was child 4. He was not named as attorney in any of the Powers of Attorney, and was not a party to the proceeding. Child 4 was diagnosed with schizophrenia and lived in his mother’s, the incapable person’s, house. He was receiving support from her. He sought to intervene to ensure that his needs were protected.

The court considered the criteria for intervening, and refused to allow child 4 to intervene.

As to the first criteria, the court found that essence of the application was who was to be responsible for the management of mother’s property, not how it was to be managed. While child 4 may have an interest in how the property was being managed, he had not genuine interest in who.

Regarding the second criteria, child 4 acknowledged that he was not adversely affected by the management of mother’s property, as long as the responsible person fulfills that role properly. The court added that child 4 would benefit from the determination of the question raised in the proceeding, as he would then know with whom he is dealing.

With respect to the third criteria, child 4 argued that he had potential claims as against his father’s estate and his mother for child support. The court found that the questions raised in those potential proceedings were not the same as the questions raised in the existing proceeding regarding who was to care for mother. Further, child 4’s lack of intervenor status would not prejudice his claims.

The court also found that allowing child 4 to intervene would result in undue delay and prejudice. The proceeding was already being expedited, and was scheduled to be heard two weeks after child 4’s motion to intervene. Allowing child 4 to intervene would likely delay the proceeding. Had child 4 moved to intervene sooner, this might not have been the case.

Costs were awarded against child 4. However, due to his being on ODSP, costs were awarded against child 4 in the amount of $4,000 to each of the other groups of litigants. Payment was deferred until child 4 received his share, if any, of his mother’s estate.

Thanks for reading.
Paul Trudelle

04 Jul

Watch what you do, you may be held accountable

Christina Canestraro Estate Litigation, Ethical Issues, Litigation, Passing of Accounts Tags: , , , , , 0 Comments

Noah Weisberg’s recent blog on the Court of Appeal decision in Dzelme v Dzelme, serves as a great reminder that ordering a passing of accounts remains in the discretion of the court.

Building on this idea of judicial discretion is the recent case of Dobis v Dobis recently heard and decided by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, whereby the court ordered a passing of accounts by a party who was deemed to have misappropriated funds from an estate asset.

Elizabeth commenced an application in her role as the estate trustee of her late husband’s estate. She sought, among other things, certain orders that would allow her to gain and maintain possession and control over one of the estate assets, a four unit rental property. She also sought an order requiring her son, Mark, to pass his accounts in respect of funds she alleged were misappropriated from the rental property.

Mark resided in one of the units of the rental property with his spouse, and alleged that it was his father’s intention that he maintain a life interest in the property. During the lifetime of the deceased, Mark acted as a manager/superintendent of the rental property in exchange for reduced rent. He also collected rent from one of the tenants and deposited the funds into a bank account owned jointly by his parents. Following his father’s death, Mark began diverting rent from the rental property to himself rather than depositing it in the joint account.

Despite requests from Elizabeth, Mark failed to properly account for the rental income. The accounting that was provided to Elizabeth was not supported by vouchers, and contained no detail of the expenses incurred. Elizabeth submitted that Mark had no legal or beneficial interest in the property, that he was holding the property hostage while unlawfully benefiting personally from the funds generated by the property, and that he failed to account for those funds.

In arriving at its decision, the court relied on the 2016 Ontario Superior Court decision in Net Connect Installations Inc. v. Mobile Zone Inc., which held that a court has jurisdiction to order an accounting where a party is deemed to have misappropriated funds.

Ultimately, Mark was compelled to pass his accounts for all monies received by him in connection with his management of the property. All this to say, watch what you do, because you may be held accountable.

Thank you for reading!

Christina Canestraro

07 Jan

Change in Practice Direction – How to refer to “Masters” in court

Stuart Clark General Interest Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , 0 Comments

If you are anything like me you have previously struggled with how you are to refer to Masters in court. Referring to them as “Master” always felt a little bit awkward, while at the same time you were always not sure if the more formal “Your Honour” was reserved solely for Judges.

If you have ever experienced similar uncertainty wonder no more, as the Consolidated Practice Direction for the Ontario Superior Court of Justice was recently amended to clarify how you are to refer to Masters in court. In accordance with the revised item 114 of the Practice Direction, it is confirmed that you are to refer to Masters as “Your Honour” in English and “Votre Honneur” in French.

Now that the potential embarrassment of using the incorrect honorific in referring to Masters has been resolved, now may also be an opportune time to provide a reminder that in accordance with item 58 of the same Consolidated Practice Direction lawyers are not required to gown when appearing before a Master.

So in summary, in accordance with the updated Consolidated Practice Direction you are to refer to Masters as “Your Honour” when appearing before them, while at the same time you are not required to gown. Consider yourself properly prepared for you next appearance before a Master.

Thank you for reading.

Stuart Clark

23 Nov

Settling Everything But Costs, Again

Paul Emile Trudelle Estate & Trust, Estate Planning, Trustees, Uncategorized, Wills Tags: , , , 0 Comments

On March 27, 2014, I blogged on the issue of settling litigation, but leaving the issue of costs to the court. I noted the decision of Dhillon v. Dhillon Estate, 2009 CanLII 58607 (ON SC), where the matter was settled on the eve of trial, but the parties left the issue of costs to the court. The court declined to make any award of costs, as the factors to be considered in awarding costs had not been determined by the court.

In the decision of Koster v. Koster, 2018 ONSC 6896 (CanLII) released November 19, 2018, the issue arose again.  A motion was brought for summary judgment, but as the court determined that it could not decide the question without a trial, the motion was dismissed. The parties then went to mediation, where the matter was settled, except for the issue of costs. Pursuant to the settlement, the entitlement and quantum of costs was to be determined by the court.

There, the court declined to make any costs award. The court referred to the Dhillon decision.

In refusing to award costs, the court stated:

By definition, a settlement is a compromise between the litigants’ positions. Also by definition, it is agreeable to all the parties. It is impossible to say with accuracy why any particular settlement was acceptable to one or other of the parties. Put another way, an award of costs is typically grounded in findings by the court as to the parties’ respective success and the impact of their actions during litigation, which are findings not made in the event of a settlement.

The court also cited from the decision in Waterloo North Condominium Corporation No. 161 v. Redmond, 2017 ONSC 1304 (CanLII). There too, the court declined to determine liability for costs following a settlement. There, the court stated:

Moreover to embark upon a full examination and adjudication of the merits of the parties’ respective substantive claims and defences for the sole purpose of determining the question of costs, when those substantive issues have been settled by the parties, would run counter to the principle in McLellan that costs are incident to a determination of the rights of the parties and are not to be made themselves the subject matter of the litigation.

As I concluded in my March 2014 blog, settling but leaving the issue of costs to the court should be avoided. Courts will be reluctant to relitigate the entire matter in order to make a determination as to who was right and who was wrong and therefore entitled to or liable for costs.

 

 

Have a great weekend.

Paul Trudelle

16 Nov

Limited Grants: Multiple Wills? Yes. One Will? No.

Paul Emile Trudelle Beneficiary Designations, Estate & Trust, Estate Planning, Trustees, Wills Tags: , , , 0 Comments

Multiple wills are an extensively used estate planning tool designed to reduce the amount of Estate Administration Tax payable. Essentially, the grant of a Certificate of Appointment is limited to the assets referred to in the will that is being probated, and Estate Administration Tax is only paid on the assets falling under the will that is being probated.

This estate planning strategy was tested and approved by the courts in Granovsky Estate v. Ontario.

However, the strategy was called into question in the recent decision of Milne Estate, which we have blogged and podcasted on.

Where there is only one will, can similar probate fee/administration tax savings be accomplished by applying for a limited grant? According to the Manitoba Court of Appeal decision of Pollock v. Manitoba, the answer is NO.

In Pollock, the deceased died leaving personal property, mainly shares in privately held corporations, having a value of about $12.5m, and real property having a value of $1m. Probate was required to deal with the real property, but not required to deal with the shares. If probate could be obtained in relation to just the real property and not the value of the shares, the estate would save $75,000 in probate fees. (Using current Estate Administration Tax rates in Ontario, the saving under such a scheme would be $187,500!)

The Manitoba legislation allowed the administration of an estate of a deceased person to be limited to certain assets “as the court thinks fit”. The Manitoba Court of Appeal considered a long line of cases dealing with the issue and concluded that the court must have a “strong reason” for making a limited grant, and stated “I do not regard the saving of probate fees as a sound reason for making a limited grant of probate. An applicant for a limited grant is, of course, entitled to take the least expensive way of administering an estate, but the chosen way must be one permitted by the legislation. The saving of probate fees is not, as I see it, a sufficiently strong reason to justify a limited grant. Nor is a limited grant a money-saving device contemplated by the legislation.”

In Ontario, the Rules of Civil Procedure specifically allow for limited grants. However, the grant is “limited to the assets referred to in the will”: Rule 74.04(1). Thus, in Ontario, if there is only one will, the result would be as in Pollock: even if probate of the will was needed in order to deal with only one asset, Estate Administration Tax would need to be paid on all assets of the estate.

Have a great weekend.
Paul Trudelle

17 May

The Power of a Great Dissent

Nick Esterbauer General Interest, In the News, Litigation Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , 0 Comments

Last night, I attended an advance screening of RBG, a documentary focusing on the career of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a current Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.  Justice Ginsburg is a long-time social rights activist and advocate well known for her work in promoting gender equality on both sides of the bench.

More recently, Justice Ginsburg has gained notoriety for frequent dissenting opinions within the context of a primarily conservative judiciary.  While a dissent is, by definition, “a disagreement with [the] majority decision” (Black’s Law Dictionary) that becomes law, one should not underestimate the value of a strong dissent over time.

At provincial appellate courts in Canada, a strong dissent may be of great assistance in preparing an application seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, as well as at the appeal stage if leave is granted.  Dissenting opinions of the Supreme Court of Canada have been referred to as the voice of the future, with prophetic potential.

Thank you for reading.

Nick Esterbauer

08 May

A Live Broadway Performance before a Jury

Doreen So Executors and Trustees, General Interest, In the News, Litigation, Uncategorized Tags: , , , , 0 Comments

Our blog has covered the unique legal issues that have surrounded Harper Lee, the author of “To Kill a Mockingbird”, and her legacy in the past here and here.

Harper Lee died in 2016.  Prior to her death, Ms. Lee published a second novel, titled “Go Set a Watchman“, and there was much litigation with respect to whether Ms. Lee was coerced into publishing this new work while she was vulnerable and elderly.

According to the New York Times, Ms. Lee also signed an agreement prior to her death which gave Rudinplay the right to adapt “To Kill a Mocking Bird” into a live stage play.  The Estate Trustee of Ms. Lee’s Estate has sued the producers of the play for breach of contract by failing to remain true to the novel.  Even though the Estate Trustee sued in Alabama, the producers have, in turn, counter-sued in New York for damages to the production.

Interestingly enough, there were discussions regarding whether the evidence at trial may include a live performance before the jury in New York.  If this request is granted, the jury will be privy to the first performance (and perhaps also the last performance) of the anticipated Broadway play.  This could be a unique precedent for copyright matters.

The play produced by Aaron Sorkin, which stars Jeff Daniels as Atticus Finch, is scheduled to open in December and tickets may go on sale here.

 

 

 

Thanks for reading!

Doreen So

29 Nov

Rule 48.14: Calculating the New “Best Before” Expiry Date

Doreen So Continuing Legal Education, General Interest, Litigation Tags: , , , , , , 0 Comments

In a prior blog, Suzana Popvoic-Montag blogged about the “Changes to Rule 48” and, specifically, with regard to the new dismissal of action for delay.

The phrase “the expiry of the applicable period” is repeated in the various subrules to Rule 48.14 and we want to take this opportunity to illustrate the meaning of this particular phrase.  This phrase is important because it pertains to when an action may be automatically dismissed by the Registrar pursuant to Rule 48.14(1).

Essentially, going forward, actions are given five years from the date of commencement before they may be dismissed for delay by the Registrar. “The expiry of the applicable period” is the expiration date that is referred to in Rule 48.14(1), in which,

48.14 (1) Unless the court orders otherwise, the registrar shall dismiss an action for delay in either of the following circumstances, subject to subrules (4) to (8):

  1. The action has not been set down for trial or terminated by any means by the later of the fifth anniversary of the commencement of the action and January 1, 2017.
  2. The action was struck off a trial list and has not been restored to a trial list or otherwise terminated by any means by the later of the second anniversary of being struck off and January 1, 2017.

Exjonmp7tpgkample 1:

The expiry of the applicable period for an action commenced on the date of this blog, i.e. November 29, 2016, will be November 29, 2021.

 

 

 

Example 2:

The expiry of the applicable period for an action commenced on the date Rule 48.14 came to force and effect, i.e. January 1, 2015, will be January 1, 2020.

Example 3:

The expiry of the applicable period for an action commenced on the date the Winter Olympic games began in Vancouver, i.e. February 12, 2010, will be January 1, 2017.

This is the case because January 1, 2017 is later than the fifth anniversary of an action commenced on February 12, 2010, whereas the fifth anniversary of the commencement dates in examples 1 and 2 are later than January 1, 2017.

Therefore, it is extremely important to keep in mind that any actions commenced before January 1, 2012 may be dismissed by the Registrar on January 1, 2017.

Thanks for reading and, for those of you nostalgic for the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics, click here for the opening ceremony highlights.  Also click here for a handy, online date calculator.

Doreen So

07 Nov

What to Do if You Receive A Not Clear Certificate from the Ontario Estate Registrar

Ian Hull Estate & Trust, Estate Planning, Executors and Trustees, General Interest, Litigation, Public Policy, Trustees, Uncategorized, Wills Tags: , , , , , , , , 0 Comments

What happens if an individual dies intestate, and upon application for a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee Without a Will, a Not Clear Certificate is returned to the applying party?

Pursuant to Rule 74.12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure:

(1) A certificate of appointment of estate trustee shall not be issued until the court has received from the Estate Registrar,

(d) on an application where there is no will, a certificate that no will or codicil has been deposited in the Superior Court of Justice.

A will being deposited in the Superior Court of Justice does not necessarily mean that the will belongs to the deceased individual.  Therefore, while one may receive a Not Clear Certificate (“Certificate”) from the Estate Registrar for Ontario, it does not guarantee that a will exists in the deceased’s name. Rather, the Certificate creates the need for the applicant to take extra steps to ensure that the wills that are deposited with the Superior Court of Justice are not wills that belong to the deceased.

Receiveing a Not Clear Certificate
“…while one may receive a Not Clear Certificate (“Certificate”) from the Estate Registrar for Ontario, it does not guarantee that a will exists in the deceased’s name.”

What Steps Should You Take?

A Certificate sent by the Estate Registrar for Ontario will contain a list of different deposit dates and court file numbers, corresponding to wills that are already deposited with the Superior Court of Justice. The listed wills on deposit will all have names similar to that of the deceased individual.

Upon receipt of the Certificate, it is the applicant’s or their lawyer’s responsibility to track down each of the deposited wills, in order to prove that they do not belong to the deceased. This involves attending the Registrar of the Court where the will has been
deposited. In some circumstances, faxing the Certificate will suffice. The Registrar will then deliver to the applicant a photocopy of the Envelope for Will on Deposit. This will allow the applicant to make the necessary investigation to determine that the will on deposit is not the will of the deceased. The Envelope for Will on Deposit contains the name of testator, the testator’s address, the name of the executor, the executor’s address, and the date the will was deposited for safe keeping.

Once the applicant gathers all of the Envelopes for Will on Deposit, the applicant must go through the envelopes and ensure they do not belong to the deceased. The applicant must then prepare an Affidavit stating that each Envelope for Will on Deposit does not belong to the deceased. The Affidavit should be filed at the Court, along with the Certificate. Once the Court is satisfied the deposited wills do not belong to the deceased, a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee Without a Will should be issued. If the will does, in fact, belong to the deceased, different steps will need to be taken in order to obtain a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee With a Will.

Thanks for reading,

Ian M. Hull

 

Other Articles You Might Enjoy:

The Dreaded Application for Certificate of Appointment of an Estate Trustee
How to Avoid Delays in Obtaining a Certificate of Appointment of an Estate Trustee

26 Nov

Words to Practice By Regarding the Toronto Estates List

Doreen So Estate & Trust, General Interest, In the News, Litigation, News & Events Tags: , , , , , , , , 0 Comments

The Honourable Mr. Justice Thomas McEwen spoke at the Estates Litigation Networking Reception hosted by the Advocate’s Society on November 23, 2015.

Justice McEwen was appointed to the Superior Court of Ontario in June, 2009 and he is currently the Civil Team Leader and Head of the Estates List in the Toronto Region.  Justice McEwen spoke at length on various issues that he wishes to convey to the estates bar which is my pleasure to reiterate on this blog.

Given the volume of matters on the Estates List, Justice McEwen noted that the Court should be provided with notice of a settlement as they occur, rather than last minute notice near the time of a scheduling appointment or hearing.  He advised that too many days on the list are being lost by last minute cancellations.  Notice of a settlement may be provided to the Court by e-mail to toronto.estates@ontario.ca.

Moreover, he spoke of the fact that each 9:30 scheduling appointment is allocated with ten minutes of time and counsel are expected to converse with one another and resolve as much as possible prior to entering the Judge’s chambers.

In cases where there are issues relating to persons under disability on a motion for directions, the Court prefers that counsel request 10:00 a.m. hearings, rather than 9:30 a.m. scheduling appointments, in order to provide the Judge with 20 minutes to canvas such issues with counsel.  Moreover, it allows the Judge to have the benefit of being able to review the full record in advance.

Lastly, communication between counsel is key in order to avoid unnecessary motions for directions.

Click here to review the Consolidated Practice Direction Concerning the Estates List in the Toronto Region as well as the relevant parts of the Consolidated Provincial Practice Direction, the Consolidated Practice Direction for Divisional Court Proceedings as well as any other relevant Toronto region-specific Practice Directions and Guides.

Thank you for reading!

Doreen So

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