Tag: Estate Litgation

22 May

Getting an Adjournment, Not

Paul Emile Trudelle Estate & Trust, Litigation Tags: , , 0 Comments

The recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Laski v. BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc., 2020 ONCA 300 (CanLII) demonstrates the accommodations that will be given to parties in advancing a proceeding, and the limits to that accommodation. It demonstrates that while the courts will be generous to parties requesting adjournments, that generosity will only go so far.

There, the Plaintiff was proceeding with a claim against BMO Nesbitt Burns with respect to their involvement in the setting up of a joint account. The Plaintiff had alleged that the setting up of the joint account was fraudulent. He had already lost his claim against the joint account holder. The court hearing that proceeding found that the joint account passed to the joint account holder by right of survivorship. The Plaintiff sought to continue his claim against BMO. BMO moved to strike this claim.

The matter proceeded on April 23, 2019. The Plaintiff did not appear, but had emailed opposing counsel shortly before the hearing to advise that he was only released from the hospital on April 18, 2019, and could not attend. The motions judge treated the email as a request for an adjournment. The request was denied, and the motion proceeded in the Plaintiff’s absence. The Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed.

The April 2019 adjournment request was not the first adjournment request. The proceeding had a long history. On April 2018, a judge set a return date of September 19, 2018, and dates for filing materials. On September 18, 2019, an adjournment was granted to February 11, 2019, peremptory to the Plaintiff, and revised dates for the delivery of materials were set. The adjournment was at the request of the Plaintiff and the Respondent did not object.

On January 28, 2019, the Plaintiff, a lawyer representing himself, filed a medical note saying that he was unable to work for six months. The motion was adjourned to April 23, 2019. The judge endorsed the record stating that no further adjournments would be granted unless the Plaintiff provided more specific information regarding his health limitations from a qualified doctor.

No materials were ever delivered by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed in his absence on April 23, 2019. The Plaintiff appealed.

In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal noted that adjournments would be granted where it was “in the interests of justice”. The judge has broad discretion, and appellate intervention is limited.  The Court also noted that the Plaintiff was already granted two adjournments and had failed to comply with previous orders requiring that he file materials and file a medical note if a further adjournment was being sought. Further, while the Plaintiff filed additional medical evidence on the appeal, there was no motion brought to allow the “fresh evidence”. In any event, the further evidence did not explain why responding materials were not filed as required.

An appeal on the merits was also dismissed.

In the context of adjournments, the court will usually grant an adjournment if the there is a good, substantiated reason for the adjournment, and no injustice will result from the delay. Opposing parties know this, and usually act accordingly. (In this case, the first adjournment request was unopposed.) However, the party seeking the adjournment should put strong evidence supporting the request before the court. Additionally, the requestor should not be in default of any other orders of the court without a good reason.

See also, Suzana Popovic-Montag and Devin McMurtry’s blog on adjournments in estate litigation, here.

Thank you for reading.

Paul Trudelle

P.S. And now for something completely different, check out this remarkable obituary.

13 May

A Further Update on the Estate Arbitration and Litigation Management (EALM) Initiative

Suzana Popovic-Montag Estate & Trust, Litigation Tags: , , , , , , , , 0 Comments

We have previously written about the Estate Arbitration and Litigation Management (“EALM”) initiative, which has been spearheaded in an effort to keep estate litigation matters moving forward during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our previous blogs on the EALM initiative can be found here and here.

In its Notice to the Profession dated May 5, 2020, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice announced that it will not resume in-person hearings until July 6, 2020, at the earliest. The notice further states that the scope of matters being heard by courts virtually will be expanded in the near future, but the particulars regarding such an expansion have not yet been released.

While access to the courts remains limited, EALM is available as a means of obtaining assistance in the determination of procedural and/or interim (and certain substantive) matters that are not necessarily urgent in nature and not currently eligible for a virtual court hearing. The matters set out in an EALM agreement can be arbitrated by senior estates practitioners in a timely and cost-efficient manner. EALM arbitrations can take place via teleconference or video conference, depending on the preferences of the parties and the arbitrator.

As previously indicated, EALM is not intended to in any way circumvent the role of the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (the “PGT”) or the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (the “OCL”) where the estate matter involves unprotected charitable interests or the rights of persons under legal disability. Since our last blog post regarding EALM was posted, the initiative has received the support of the PGT and the OCL and our precedent EALM agreement has been further updated to recognize the potential role that the PGT and/or the OCL may have in EALM process. Best EALM practices include ensuring that the PGT and/or the OCL are provided with the opportunity to participate, and further include the following:

  • Where any substantive issue to be submitted to arbitration affects the rights of persons under legal disability, or an unprotected charitable interest, the parties must provide notice of their intention to enter into an EALM agreement to the PGT and/or the OCL;
  • The PGT and/or the OCL should be served at the early stages of a matter, particularly when the issues will have a significant effect upon the interests that they represent;
  • Where the PGT and/or the OCL are participating in a proceeding, their consent to proceed to EALM is required;
  • Where it is necessary for a court to appoint the PGT or the OCL as litigation guardian, each office may consider requests to engage in the EALM process after they have been appointed as litigation guardian (rather than prior to their formal appointment); and
  • An arbitrator’s decision to resolve substantive issues involving the rights of persons under legal disability will be considered to be a final settlement, which requires court approval under Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

A revised copy of our precedent EALM agreement, which has been updated in consultation with the PGT and the OCL in consideration of the comments set out above, can be found here. An updated list of senior estates practitioners who are prepared to assist as EALM arbitrators is available here. I again thank all of those who have demonstrated an interest in assisting other members of the Estates Bar as arbitrators.

EALM is a cost-effective measure to move matters forward and provides the parties to litigation with more control than the traditional court process. Once the courts resume full operations, we can only anticipate that they will be at full capacity and hearing dates will be in high demand. In light of this, we are hopeful that EALM will continue to assist parties to estate litigation and their counsel as a suitable and efficient alternative to in-court hearings.

If you are interested in introducing EALM into your own practice, or if you are interested in being added to our roster of EALM arbitrators, please contact me at spopovic@hullandhull.com.

Thank you for reading and stay safe.

Suzana Popovic-Montag

26 Apr

Hull on Estates #464 – Insurance Policies & Estate Litigation

Hull & Hull LLP Hull on Estate and Succession Planning, Hull on Estates, Litigation, Podcasts, PODCASTS / TRANSCRIBED, Show Notes, Show Notes Tags: , , , , 0 Comments

This week on Hull on Estates, Noah Weisberg and David Morgan Smith provide a general discussion on insurance policies in the context of estate litigation.

Should you have any questions, please email us at webmaster@hullandhull.com or leave a comment on our blog.

Click here for more information on Noah Weisberg.

Click here for more information on David Smith.

04 Dec

Preparing for Trial in a Contested Passing (continued)

Hull & Hull LLP Passing of Accounts Tags: , , , , , 0 Comments

In yesterday’s blog I noted that my blogs this week would, at least in part, address preparation for trial in a contested passing. Today’s blog comments on certain aspects of trial preparation (the parties, setting the matter down for trial and documents/productions).

The issue of whether all of the parties who ought to be involved in the passing are involved, and, if so, whether any of the parties who do not have representation need representation, must be considered. In considering who the appropriate parties are, or should be, the following questions might be asked: Are there self-represented parties? Have they been notified of all matters related to the proceeding? Has any party filed a Notice of No Objection to the accounts? Has anyone filed a Statement of Submission of Rights (if so, have they been served by the plaintiff with written notice of the time and place of the trial)? Is a minor involved (Rule 7.03(2), The Office of the Children’s Lawyer)? Is there an adult party who is disabled (Rule 7, The Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee)? Is a representation Order necessary (Rule 10).

Regarding the scheduling of the trial, an order of the Court for directions, or otherwise, at any pre-trial stage, or at the pre-trial conference might address same. It may be that the date of the trial, fixed in its length, is to be fixed by the Registrar on a date mutually convenient to the parties. If, on the other hand, the proceeding is to be set down for trial, Rule 48.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure allows for the proceeding to be set down for trial after the close of pleadings and when a party is ready for trial. In any case, inquiries should be made with the Court office where the trial is to take place to determine what, if any, forms need to be filed with the Court to confirm that the trial is to proceed.

Regarding the preparation of documents/productions for trial, it is critical that the documents in respect of the proceeding be organized prior to trial. If the documents necessary for the trial are not in counsel’s possession when preparing for trial, for whatever reason, they should be obtained prior to trial. Such documents include, but are not limited to, all pleadings, the estate accounts, certificate of appointment, prior Judgments for passing of accounts, all Orders regarding the passing of accounts, all Notices of Objections (and withdrawals), Statements of Submission of Rights, Consents/Releases of any party, Affidavits of Service and the documents exchanged between the parties as a result of the Rules of Civil Procedure, any agreement of the parties and/or Court Order. 

Also ensure that all issues of privilege regarding the documents are dealt with prior to trial.

Lastly, ensure that you have the originals of your client’s documents unless they are not available. If originals are not available, know why they are not available.  

Thanks for reading.

Craig

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