Today’s blog was written by Iryna Huk
In Pizzi v Nouini Estate, 2025 ONSC 4974, the applicant, challenged his late wife’s will and several property transfer that she made prior to her passing. He believed that her sister, niece, and son (the respondents) benefited improperly from those transactions.
The litigation has been underway since 2023, and earlier court orders already required the parties to exchange extensive financial records, medical files, and lawyers’ notes related to the deceased’s estate planning and property dealings. Everyone understood that if additional documents became necessary, they could ask the court for further direction.
The applicant brought a refusals motion – a motion asking the court to compel the other side to answer questions they previously declined to answer during examinations for discovery, along with more complete responses to various undertakings.
However, the applicant brought far too many issues for the short hearing time he had booked. The judge cautioned the applicant that anything he couldn’t argue within the allotted time would be dismissed. Faced with this, he drastically narrowed his motion and focused solely on one category—communications. Even then, the applicant wanted broad production of emails, texts, WhatsApp messages, and phone records exchanged between multiple family members over several years, often without any limit on the topic.
The respondents objected, arguing that this was (1) the wrong procedural route, (2) that the requests were far too broad, and (3) that they had already produced anything relevant. The respondents argued that the process for productions is different in estates matters. Instead of bringing a refusals motion, a party seeking additional documents must return to the estates court, usually through a case conference or by a motion for an amendment to the existing order for directions. This process, the respondents argue, was confirmed by an earlier order for directions which specifically stated that the parties “return for further productions in the event such productions become necessary”. The applicant did not do this, and the respondents argued that he was now attempting, by refusals motion, to do what he should have done at the case conference stage.
The judge agreed that this was not the best way to request additional documents but since a previous judge had already allowed the refusals motion to proceed, it was permitted to continue. The court was clear that the timing and effectiveness of such a motion was questionable and warned that if it was found to be inappropriate, the applicant may have to pay the costs of the opposing party. Despite the green light to proceed with the motion, the ruling did not help the applicant. Most of the communication demands were rejected as irrelevant or overly broad; asking for “all emails” or “all texts” between various family members over many years was not appropriate in the context of this litigation. Where the requests were relevant, the judge found that the respondents had already answered them: they had searched their records, produced some emails relating to property and transfers, and confirmed when nothing else could be found. A few remaining items were dismissed simply because the applicant did not have enough time to argue them.
In the end, the applicant lost the motion. The respondents had been put to unnecessary effort, especially given how broad the requests were and how late they were brought. As a result, the court ordered the applicant to pay their legal costs, totaling more than $21,000.
