Tag: Limitation Periods

23 Jan

Summary Judgment and Limitation Periods in Will Challenges

Doreen So Estate & Trust, Estate Litigation, Litigation, Uncategorized Tags: , , 0 Comments

Earlier this week, I wrote two blogs on the limitations issue in Piekut v. Romoli, 2019 ONSC 1190, 2020 ONCA 26.  The facts in that case were briefly summarized here.

The testators died in 2008.  The family realized there was a disagreement about the validity of their parents’ codicils that year but everything seemed to be on hold until Helen brought an application in 2015 to determine the validity of the codicil.  In response, Krystyna brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss Helen’s application on the basis it is statute barred pursuant to the Limitations Act, 2002.  This motion was brought by Krystyna because she was interested in maintaining the force and effect of the codicils that gave her certain properties.  Thereafter, Helen cross-motioned for summary judgment on her application.

Rule 20.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure sets out the basis for summary judgment.  Summary judgment shall be granted if: (a) the court is satisfied that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial with respect to a claim or defence; or (b) if the parties agree to have all or part of the claim determined by a summary judgment and the court is satisfied that it is appropriate to grant summary judgment.  The Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak v. Maudlin, 2014 SCC 7, determined that “a trial is not required if a summary judgment motion can achieve a fair and just adjudication, if it provides a process that allows the judge to make the necessary findings of fact, apply the law to those facts, and is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result than going to trial.”

With that in mind, Justice Dietrich found that Krystyna’s motion for summary judgment was appropriate for the following reasons (see para. 35):

  • There were no material facts in dispute;
  • No additional facts would emerge at trial;
  • The application of an absolute limitation period was generally a fairly straightforward factual analysis;
  • That based on the evidence before her, this matter can be resolved without a trial and that a trial of this narrow issue would be a more expensive and lengthy means of achieving a just result.

The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed with Justice Dietrich’s finding on this point.  The panel emphasized how both parties brought summary judgment motions and filed affidavits with exhibits of their own.

In contrast, a similar summary judgment motion was unsuccessful in Birtzu v. McCron, 2017 ONSC 1420, 2019 ONCA 777 (on the issue of costs, only).  The Court in Birtzu found that summary judgment was not appropriate and ordered costs against the defendant in any event of the cause (with reasons that were unreported).  That said, the defendant was ultimately successful in proving that the plaintiffs were statute barred after a full trial on all issues.

Thanks for reading!

Doreen So and Celine Dookie

21 Jan

Pleadings Matter for Limitation Periods

Doreen So Continuing Legal Education, Estate & Trust, Estate Litigation, Executors and Trustees, Litigation, Uncategorized, Wills Tags: , , , 0 Comments

Today’s blog is a continuation of yesterday’s discussion regarding the limitations analysis in Piekiut v. Romoli, 2019 ONSC 11902020 ONCA 26.  No limitation period was found to apply where an estate trustee was simply seeking a determination and declaration as to whether certain codicils were valid or not valid.

The testators in this case died in 2008.  They had 3 children, Helen, Victor, and Krystyna.  A meeting took place in 2008 between all 3 children and a lawyer to discuss the administration of the Estate.  During this meeting, Krystyna revealed, for the first time, the existence of codicils and declarations of gift that provide her with an interest in certain properties.  Helen refused to acknowledge the validity of these new documents.

In 2015, Helen brings a court application.  Her application was later amended, on the consent of parties, in 2018 to reflect that Helen was only seeking a declaration in respect of the validity of the codicils.  Thus in 2019, Justice Dietrich’s decision was made in the context of Krystyna’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss Helen’s application on the basis that it was statute barred and Helen’s cross-motion for summary judgment on her application.  Justice Dietrich found that, since Helen did not ask the court to determine the ultimate beneficiaries of the properties that were subject to the Codicil or to vest such properties in any particular beneficiary or beneficiaries, her application was not barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal agreed with Justice Dietrich.  The panel was also of the view that this case is distinguishable from Leibel v. Leibel2014 ONSC 4516 and Birtzu v. McCron, 2017 ONSC 1420 because of the consequential relief that was pleaded in those cases.  Since the Court of Appeal decision did not go into the details of the relief sought in Birtzu (unlike its description of Leibel), it is helpful to understand the breadth of the Statement of Claim in Birtzu, which sought the following:

  • an Order setting aside the Will;
  • an Order setting aside the Deceased’s Powers of Attorney;
  • an accounting of the entire Estate, as well as all financial transactions undertaken by the Deceased, or on his behalf, or on behalf of his Estate, from the date that the Deceased’s matrimonial home was sold in 2003 to the date of trial;
  • Orders for the production and release of financial and medical information;
  • an Order reversing all transactions undertaken by the Defendant, either directly or indirectly, without authority or in breach of her authority, or in breach of her fiduciary duties to the Deceased and to his beneficiaries, including the Plaintiffs;
  • an Order tracing the property of the Deceased into the property owned by the Defendant, including her home;
  • Orders for injunctive relief, including the issuance of a certificate of pending litigation;
  • a Declaration that all property held in the name of the Defendant, or part thereof, is held by her for the benefit of the Plaintiffs;
  • damages against the Defendant in the amount of at least $400,000.00, for conversion of property, breach of statutory duty, and/or breach of fiduciary duty;
  • pre- and post- judgment interest; and
  • costs fixed on a substantial indemnity basis, plus H.S.T.

Thanks for reading!

Doreen So

18 Nov

What happens when you are out of time to serve a claim?

Doreen So Continuing Legal Education, Estate Litigation, Litigation, Uncategorized Tags: , , , 0 Comments

A recent master motions in the Estate of Robert William Drury Sr., 2019 ONSC 6071, considered the issue of an extension of time to serve a statement of claim.

Robert Sr. owned a property where the defendant Shirley lived with her spouse Hugh Drury.  When Hugh Drury died, Robert Sr. sought vacant possession of his home.  Robert Sr. died on September 8, 2016.  Days later there was a fire on the property on September 24th and Shirley was criminally charged with arson.

Almost two years later, the estate trustee for Robert Sr.’s Estate issued a statement of claim for malicious and intentional arson damage, or gross negligence causing loss of enjoyment of life, or damages for loss of property.   That claim was issued on September 19, 2018 while Shirley’s criminal proceedings were underway.  Pursuant to Rule 14.08(1), Robert Jr. had 6 months to serve the civil claim on Shirley which expired on March 19, 2019.  Shirley was not served until June 14, 2019 when Robert Jr. brought a motion for an extension of time.

In applying the test that was set out by the Court of Appeal in Chiarelli v Wiens, 2000 CanLii 3904, the extension of time was ultimately allowed by Master Sugunasiri.

The delay was only three months and the prejudice to Shirley was minor.  Robert Jr. explained that he acted on the advice of counsel when the decision was made to serve Shirley after the conclusion of the criminal proceeding.  This decision was not personal or contemptuous.  As for Shirley, while memories fade over time, the criminal proceeding was found to be an ameliorating factor that preserved her evidence for the civil proceeding.

In reaching this decision, Master Sugunasiri also considered an instance where an extension of time was denied because the delay was caused by the Plaintiff’s decision not to serve the claim until he had enough money to fund the proceeding.  In that case, the Court found that the Plaintiff ought to bear the consequences of the risk that he took under the Rules.

Thanks for reading!

Doreen So

Turning off an alarm clock
11 Dec

Preserving the Right to an Equalization of Net Family Properties

Nick Esterbauer Estate & Trust, Support After Death, Wills Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , 0 Comments

A recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice highlights the importance of preserving a surviving married spouse’s ability to elect for an equalization of net family properties within the six-month limitation period.

Upon death, a surviving married spouse in Ontario can elect for an equalization of net family properties under Sections 5 and 6 of the Family Law Act instead of taking under the predeceasing spouse’s will or, if the spouse has not left a will, on intestacy.  Subsections 6(10), 6(11), and 7(3)(c) of the Family Law Act provide that the surviving spouse must ordinarily make an election within six months of date of death and not after that date.  The Court may, however, extend the election deadline in the event that: (a) there are apparent grounds for relief; (b) relief is unavailable because of delay that has been incurred in good faith; and, (c) no person will suffer substantial prejudice by reason of the delay (subsection 2(8) of the Family Law Act).

Courts have reviewed the circumstances in which an extension is typically ordered.  The requirement that the delay be incurred in good faith has been interpreted as meaning that the party has acted honestly and with no ulterior motive (see, for example, Busch v Amos, 1994 CanLII 7454 (ONSC)).

In Mihalcin v Templeman, 2018 ONSC 5385, a surviving spouse had commenced two claims with respect to the estate of her late husband and an inter vivos gift made to a live-in caregiver.  However, neither of the proceedings had sought any relief relating to an equalization of net family properties, nor did the wife take any steps to make an election or to extend the time within which she was permitted to do so.  The Court reviewed whether the delay in making the election was in good faith.  The evidence regarding the reasons for the delay in electing for equalization were considered to be vague and insufficient to satisfy the evidentiary burden that the delay was incurred in good faith.  Accordingly, the applicant was not permitted to amend her pleadings to incorporate this relief.

Justice Bruce Fitzpatrick commented as follows with respect to the importance of limitation periods, generally (at para 48):

I am mindful of the general importance of limitation periods for the conduct of litigation. There is an obligation on parties to put forward all known legitimate claims within certain time limits. In this case, the time limit was relatively short. I think it cannot be readily ignored. The evidentiary record is not sufficient for me to say that justice requires me to exercise my discretion in favour of allowing [the applicant] to amend her claim so as to include a claim for equalization in all of the circumstances.

Where an equalization of net family properties may be sought at a later time (for example, pending the outcome of a will challenge or dependant’s support application), it is prudent to seek an extension well before the expiry of the six-month limitation period as courts may or may not assist a surviving spouse in seeking this relief down the road, if and when it may become advisable.

Thank you for reading,

Nick Esterbauer

 

Other blog entries/podcasts that may be of interest:

 

27 Nov

Hull on Estates #560 – Wall v. Shaw – Limitation Periods and Passing of Accounts

76admin Estate & Trust, Estate Planning, Hull on Estates, Litigation, Podcasts Tags: , , , , , 0 Comments

Today on Hull on Estates, Stuart Clark and Doreen So discuss the recent decision of Wall v. Shaw, 2018 ONCA 929, and its potential impact upon the availability of limitations defences in an Application to Pass Accounts.

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 Stuart Clark.

Click here for more information on Doreen So.

05 Oct

The Blunt Force of Limitation Periods

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

“No one likes to see a limitation period applied to dismiss a claim. That said, there are good reasons for limitation periods. This case is an example of why they exist.”

So says Justice Nakatsuru in the opening line of his decision of Sinclair v. Harris, 2018 ONSC 5718 (CanLII).

There, the estate trustees of the estate of Virginia Rock (“Rock”) sued Merilyn and Frederick Harris (“the Harris’s”), claiming an equitable interest in lands purchased by the Harris’s, as part of the funds for the purchase of the lands were provided by Rock.

There, the relevant time line was as follows:

July 12, 2000:             Rock provides money to the Harris’s to buy a property

August 5, 2003:           The Harris’s sell the property. Rock was apparently aware of this.

November 17, 2015:   Rock dies

February 24, 2017:     Rock’s estate trustees commence the action

Justice Nakatsuru found that the 10 year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act applied. He disagreed with the estate trustees’ position that no limitation period applies to a claim for resulting trust. As the claim was a claim for the recovery of land (or “money to be laid out in the purchase of land”), the limitation period in the Real Property Limitations Act applied.

The court held that the limitation period would have commenced on the date the funds were advanced. Alternatively, it would have run from the time when the Harris’s sold the property. Under either interpretation, the limitation period had passed.

The action was dismissed.

Justice Nakatsuru said that “No one likes to see a limitation period applied to dismiss a claim.” No one other than a defendant.

Footnote: Justice Nakatsuru has been called the “poetic” judge and lauded in Macleans Magazine for his “heartfelt, easy-to-read rulings”. For an excellent example of this, see his decision on a bail application in R. v. Sledz, 2017 ONCJ 151 (CanLII).

Have a great weekend.

Paul Trudelle

09 Jan

Hull on Estates #537 – Calderon Estate: Standing and Limitation Periods

76admin Hull on Estate and Succession Planning, Hull on Estates, Podcasts, PODCASTS / TRANSCRIBED, Show Notes, Show Notes, Trustees Tags: , , , , , , , , 0 Comments

In today’s podcast, Jonathon Kappy and Umair Abdul Qadir discuss the Honourable Justice McEwen’s recent decision in Calderon Estate v Prince, 2017 ONSC 6584, on the issues of standing of a non-party and the application of the two-year limitation period under the Trustee Act.

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 Jonathon Kappy.

Click here for more information on Umair Abdul Qadir.

13 Jun

Hull on Estates #522 – Limitation Periods and Statutory Guardianship

76admin Guardianship, Hull on Estate and Succession Planning, Hull on Estates, Podcasts, PODCASTS / TRANSCRIBED, Show Notes, Show Notes Tags: , , , , , , 0 Comments

Today on Hull on Estates, Suzana Popovic-Montag and Umair Abdul Qadir discuss the recent decision of the Honourable Justice McNamara in Shaw v Barber, 2017 ONSC 2155, regarding the tolling of the limitation period for dependant’s relief claims under Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act when the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee is acting as the statutory guardian for an incapable person.

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

When does the limitation period run when the PGT is statutory guardian?

Doreen So Capacity, Continuing Legal Education, Elder Law, Estate & Trust, Executors and Trustees, General Interest, In the News, Litigation, News & Events, Power of Attorney Tags: , , , , , , , , , 0 Comments

The applicability of limitation periods to estates, trusts, and capacity matters is crucial for litigators to consider.  In a recent decision of the Superior Court of Justice, the Court was asked to consider the application of the limitation period in Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act (“SLRA”) to a claim that was advanced by the Public Guardian and Trustee (the “PGT”) as the litigation guardian of an incapable support claimant.

Shaw v. Barber, 2017 ONSC 2155, is an important precedent for the proposition that limitation periods do not run against the incapable person from the day that the PGT becomes his/her statutory guardian of property.  By operation of section 16(5) of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, the PGT automatically becomes an incapable person’s statutory guardian of property the moment they receive a certificate of incapacity from the assessor.  In Shaw v. Barber, the dependant support claimant, Lois Shaw, was assessed and found to be incapable of managing property on February 16, 2015 and a copy of the certificate was sent to the PGT on or about February 25, 2015.

Prior to the assessment, Ms. Shaw lived with Frank Cyril Barber on the date of his death, although they were not married.  Mr. Barber died in August, 2014, leaving a Will which named his son as the sole Estate Trustee and beneficiary of his Estate.  A Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee with a Will was issued to Mr. Barber’s son on February 5, 2015.  Pursuant to section 61(1) of the SLRA, an application for dependant support may not be made six months after the grant of probate, subject to the Court’s discretion in section 61(2) to allow claims against the undistributed portion of an estate.  Without considering the Court’s discretion in section 61(2) of the Act, Justice McNamara found that Ms. Shaw’s claim for dependant support was not statute barred despite the fact that it was issued, one year after six months from probate, on August 5, 2016.

In his reasoning, Justice McNamara considered the tolling provision applicable to incapable persons while he/she is not represented by a litigation guardian in section 7 of the Limitations Act, 2002 (which applies to the section 61 of the SLRA).  The turning point then becomes whether a guardian of property is automatically a litigation guardian in relation to the claim at issue since a guardian has the power to do anything the incapable person may do except make a will.  In this case, there was an affidavit from PGT counsel which explained the time consuming investigations involved when the PGT becomes a statutory guardian of property because of the lack of first-hand information from the incapable individual.  Justice McNamara determined that a guardian of property shall act as litigation guardian when he/she has determined that there is a basis for exercising their authority in that role, and that imposing a limitation period from the date in which the PGT becomes statutory guardian is contrary to the Limitations Act and it would create impossible timelines and potential injustice for this vulnerable group.  Furthermore, Justice McNamara was also persuaded by the fact that the Estate Trustee in this case will not be prejudiced by the delay, given that he is also the sole beneficiary, and that he was aware all along that the PGT was considering a claim against the Estate.

This case is also an example of the latitude that Courts may accord to large-scale claimants as seen in 407 ETR Concession Company Limited v. Day, 2016 ONCA 709.

Please do not hesitate to contact our firm for a copy of Justice McNamara’s reasons in Shaw v. Barber and click here for comments from Russel Molot, counsel for the PGT in this matter, as reported in the Law Times.

Doreen So

15 Feb

Recent Decisions on Section 38 of the Trustee Act

Suzana Popovic-Montag Trustees Tags: , , 0 Comments

The Ontario Superior Court recently considered the application of section 38 of the Trustee Act in John C. Chaplin v. First Associates Investments Inc. et al and Abrahamovitz v Berens.

Section 38(1) of the Trustee Act states:

Except in cases of libel and slander, the executor or administrator of any deceased person may maintain an action for all torts or injuries to the person or to the property of the deceased in the same manner and with the same rights and remedies as the deceased would, if living, have been entitled to do, and the damages when recovered shall form part of the personal estate of the deceased; but if death results from such injuries no damages shall be allowed for the death or for the loss of the expectation of life, but this proviso is not in derogation of any rights conferred by Part V of the Family Law Act.

In Bonaparte v. Canada (Attorney General), the Court held that in considering whether a wrong falls within the ambit of s38(1), “the focus is not upon the form of the action but whether the alleged wrong constitutes an injury to the person.” The courts have held that this section applies to claims in tort, contract, and breach of fiduciary duty.

In John C. Chaplin, an Estate commenced an action against an investment advisor for making speculative investments, which resulted in losses. In this case, the Court seems to expand the scope of s. 38(1) further, to include actions for purely economic loss, stating:

The property of the deceased, being her money, was allegedly destroyed in value due to the wrongful acts of Mr. Monaghan. Black’s Law Dictionary includes in the definition of “injury” the “violation of another’s legal right, for which the law provides a remedy; a wrong or injustice” and “any harm or damage”. That is broad enough to include the claims here for damages arising from the actions of Mr. Monaghan who was a registered investment advisor with First Associates.

The court also considered the limitation period in section 38(3) of the Trustee Act, which states:

An action under this section shall not be brought after the expiration of two years from the death of the deceased.

The Court held that this limitation period is strict and that the discoverability rule does not apply. This limitation period applies both to claims by and against the estate, under s. 38(2). Moreover, in Abrahamovitz v Berens the Court held that the section does not extend or toll a limitation period created by the Limitations Act, but simply passes the right to commence an action from the deceased to the personal representative if the cause of action arose before death.

Thank you for reading.

Suzana Popovic-Montag

 

Other articles you might enjoy:

Fraudulent Concealment

Limitation Periods – Demand Promissory Notes

The Limitation Period Applicable to Equitable Title

 

 

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