Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The Respondents, Mary Elizabeth Saylor and William Anthony Madsen are the sister and brother of the Appellant, Patricia Ann Brooks who was named executor by their late father. Litigation was commenced by Saylor and Madsen by way of application in September 2001 and Brooks was named in the application as Respondent in her capacity of estate trustee only. In that application, they sought an order requiring Brooks to account for the property of their deceased father; for division of the property in accordance with the will; and for an injunction requiring her to pay all estate monies into court. Brooks issued a counter application on February 11, 2002, solely in her capacity as estate trustee seeking an order for directions from the court. The parties entered into a consent order in which Brooks was required to pay the amount in the estate account, $365,000.00, to her lawyer, Mr. Ackerman, who was to hold such funds pursuant to a handwritten undertaking agreed to by the parties. It was also ordered that the application was to be converted to an action. The statement of claim was issued on August 22, 2002, and Brooks was named as defendant both in her personal capacity and as estate trustee.

The late father had transferred all of his bank accounts and investments into the joint names of himself and Brooks approximately seven and one half years before he died. At the time of his death he owned his interest in these joint accounts, a life insurance policy and real property. Additionally, Brooks as estate trustee, alleged that the Respondent sister owed the estate $35,900.00 and the Respondent brother owed $26,360.00 to the estate, which they had borrowed from their late father and sought an order for payment. The trial judge gave judgment allowing the claim that the funds contained in the bank account and certain investments held jointly by Brooks and her late father formed part of the estate. The trial judge also found that Brooks had breached her fiduciary duty by failing to include the joint accounts in the estate, but did not award damages; rather, Brooks was required to make restitution to the estate. Brooks’ compensation as estate trustee was fixed. The trial judge dismissed the counter-claim and held that the sum paid by the estate to Mr. Ackerman for Brooks’ legal fees was to be repaid to the estate, either by Brooks or by Mr. Ackerman. The determination of costs was then made on May 3, 2005, and Brooks was, in her personal capacity, ordered to pay the Respondents’ costs fixed in the amount of $120,000.00. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.