Piekut v. Romoli

Piekut v. Romoli

The Court held the motion judge correctly applied the Hryniak summary judgment test and was entitled to decide the matter on affidavits; Helen's application sought only declaratory relief and therefore was not barred by s.16(1)(a) of the Limitations Act; on the evidentiary record there was insufficient evidence to establish that the codicils complied with statutory formalities or that the testators had testamentary capacity, so the codicils were invalid; the appeal was dismissed and costs awarded.

Citation
2020 ONCA 26
Parties
Applicant (respondent): Helen Piekut; Respondent (appellant): Krystyna Romoli; Respondent (appellant): Victor Wroblewski
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice (motion for Summary Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Validity of Codicils, Declaratory Relief, Summary Judgment (hryniak), Limitations Act S.16(1)(a), Testamentary Capacity, Formalities Under Succession Law Reform Act, Costs
Source Language
English
Wills and Estates Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Validity of Codicils Declaratory Relief Summary Judgment (hryniak) Limitations Act S.16(1)(a) Testamentary Capacity +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Helen Piekut

Applicant (respondent)

Krystyna Romoli

Respondent (appellant)

Victor Wroblewski

Respondent (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice (motion for Summary Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the purported July 2006 codicils complied with formal execution requirements under the Succession Law Reform Act
  2. 2 Whether the application for a declaration on the validity of the codicils is statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, including the application of s.16(1)(a)
  3. 3 Whether the motion judge properly granted summary judgment under the test in Hryniak v. Mauldin

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the motion judge correctly applied the Hryniak summary judgment test and was entitled to decide the matter on affidavits; Helen's application sought only declaratory relief and therefore was not barred by s.16(1)(a) of the Limitations Act; on the evidentiary record there was insufficient evidence to establish that the codicils complied with statutory formalities or that the testators had testamentary capacity, so the codicils were invalid; the appeal was dismissed and costs awarded.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs to Helen Piekut fixed at $12,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST