Kerzner Estate
The appeal was dismissed because the motion judge's factual findings—including lack of cohabitation for any identifiable period, evidence of fidelity and financial arrangements, clear breaks in the relationship, and absence of a settled intention to treat the second appellant as a child of the family—were supported...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2018 ONCA 258
- Parties
- Applicant (appellant): Branislava Stajduhar; Applicant (appellant): Andreja Stajduhar; Respondent: Arlene Wolfe, executrix of the Estate of Jeffrey Kerzner
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 15 March 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Dependants' Relief Under the Succession Law Reform Act / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Superior Court Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Dependant's Relief, Cohabitation, Fresh Evidence, Intention to Treat as Child of Family, Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Branislava Stajduhar
Applicant (appellant)
Andreja Stajduhar
Applicant (appellant)
Arlene Wolfe, executrix of the Estate of Jeffrey Kerzner
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Dependants' Relief Under the Succession Law Reform Act / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Superior Court Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellants are entitled to dependant's relief under the Succession Law Reform Act
- 2 Whether the motion judge erred in his findings of fact regarding cohabitation, fidelity, financial arrangements and breaks in the relationship
- 3 Whether the fresh evidence tendered by the appellants should be admitted on appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the motion judge's factual findings—including lack of cohabitation for any identifiable period, evidence of fidelity and financial arrangements, clear breaks in the relationship, and absence of a settled intention to treat the second appellant as a child of the family—were supported by the evidence; the tendered fresh evidence was not admissible; and CPP survivor benefits are irrelevant to a Succession Law Reform Act claim.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Refusal to admit the tendered fresh evidence
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Kerzner Estate Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2018-03-15 Neutral citation 2018 ONCA 258 Docket numbers C64220 Judges Hoy, Alexandra; Juriansz, Russell G.; Miller, Bradley Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Kerzner Estate, 2018 ONCA 258 DATE: 20180315 DOCKET: C64220 Hoy A.C.J.O., Juriansz and Miller JJ.A. In the Estate of Jeffrey Kerzner, deceased BETWEEN Branislava Stajduhar and Andreja Stajduhar Applicants (Appellants) and Arlene Wolfe, executrix of the Estate of Jeffrey Kerzner Respondent (Respondent) Branislava Stajduhar and Andreja Stajduhar, acting in person Robert Coates, for the respondent Heard and released orally: March 12, 2018 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Sean F. Dunphy of the Superior Court of Justice, dated August 30, 2017. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] This is an appeal from the judgment of Dunphy J. of the Superior Court of Justice dismissing the appellants’ application for dependant’s relief. [2] The first appellant submits the motion judge placed too much emphasis on his finding that she and the deceased did not live together for any identifiable period. No doubt he placed a great deal of emphasis on this factor. However, he also took into account other factors. He looked at the factor of fidelity in the relationship, the financial arrangements, the overall nature of the relationship, and their alleged common life together. In addition, he found there were clear breaks in the relationship on two different occasions. He supported his findings with careful reference to the evidence. [3] The motion judge also found as a fact the deceased did not have a settled intention to treat the second appellant as a child of his family. [4] The appellants submit that the fresh evidence they tendered is corroborative and confirmatory of their claim and provides a basis for disturbing the motion judge’s findings of fact on appeal. We do not agree and we refuse to admit the tendered fresh evidence. The fact that the appellants have been granted CPP survivor benefits has no relevance either to the legal principles or the facts found by the court in determining their application for dependant’s relief under the Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26. [5] We are not persuaded there is any basis to interfere with the decision of the motion judge. The appeal is dismissed. Costs are awarded to the respondent in the amount of $12,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST. “Alexandra Hoy A.C.J.O.” “R.G. Juriansz J.A.” “B.W. Miller J.A.”