A common myth about estate planning is that if you leave a nominal amount (say $1.00) to someone it prevents them from challenging your will. Like most urban legends, there is a grain of truth here – but it’s still a myth. This grain of truth is that one of the grounds to challenge a […]
The administrations of some estates simply do not move forward smoothly. The Elias Gefen estate is one such estate. In Gefen v. Gaertner, 2019 ONSC 6015, Justice Kimmel addressed multiple issues which had stopped the administration from moving forward, ranging from mutual wills to secret trust agreements. Justice Kimmel also applied, for the first time
What is the minimum level of evidence to be met before a court allows a will challenge to proceed? The recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision in Naismith v. Clarke, 2019 ONSC 5280 (“Naismith”) sets out a useful overview for the circumstances under which a court may allow a will challenge to move forward.
As expected, the Supreme Court of Canada’s major decision in Hyrniak v. Mauldin has led to an increased use of the summary judgement motion in Ontario. On a motion for summary judgement, a court disposes of a case without the need for a costly and time consuming hearing or trial. However, some recent court decisions
Limitation periods generally aim to strike the appropriate balance between an aggrieved party’s right to seek redress and a potential defendant’s right not to remain under the cloud of litigation indefinitely. Limitation periods also address the concern that it would be unfair for a person to defend him or herself against allegations when the passage
