Jacques v. Hipel Estate
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to establish unconscionable conduct or fraudulent concealment; there was ample evidence supporting the trial judge's finding that the respondent's conduct did not go beyond negligence and the appellant had prior knowledge and ability to discover the estate assets.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2012 ONCA 371
- Parties
- Appellant: Norma Irene Jacques; Respondent: The Canada Trust Company, Executor and Trustee of the Estate of Norman Otto Hipel, and the Estate of George Hipel
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 1 June 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Fraudulent Concealment, Unconscionable Conduct, Distribution of Estate, 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
Norma Irene Jacques
Appellant
The Canada Trust Company, Executor and Trustee of the Estate of Norman Otto Hipel, and the Estate of George Hipel
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent engaged in fraudulent concealment or unconscionable conduct by failing to distribute the estate on the death of the life tenant
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to establish unconscionable conduct or fraudulent concealment; there was ample evidence supporting the trial judge's finding that the respondent's conduct did not go beyond negligence and the appellant had prior knowledge and ability to discover the estate assets.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Costs to the respondent fixed at $8,000 all inclusive
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Jacques v. Hipel Estate Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2012-06-01 Neutral citation 2012 ONCA 371 Docket numbers C54429 Judges Goudge, Stephen Thomas; Simmons, Janet M.; Rouleau, Paul S. Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Jacques v. Hipel Estate, 2012 ONCA 371 DATE: 20120531 DOCKET: C54429 Goudge, Simmons and Rouleau JJ.A. IN THE MATTER OF the Estate of George Garfield Hipel, late of the City of Cambridge, in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, deceased AND IN THE MATTER OF the Estate of Norman Otto Hipel, late of the City of Cambridge in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, deceased AND IN THE MATTER OF the Estate of Olive Victoria Hipel, late of the City of Kitchener in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, deceased AND IN THE MATTER OF the Estate of Mabel Helen Hipel, late of the City of Cambridge in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, deceased BETWEEN Norma Irene Jacques Plaintiff (Appellant) and The Canada Trust Company, Executor and Trustee of the Estate of Norman Otto Hipel, deceased, and the Estate of George Hipel, deceased Defendants (Respondent) Ian Hull and David M. Smith, for the appellant Ross Earnshaw, for the respondent Heard: May 30, 2012 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Parayeski of the Superior Court of Justice, dated September 7, 2011. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant argues that the respondent, by not distributing on the death of the life tenant, engaged in fraudulent concealment and that the trial judge erred in not so finding. [2] We do not agree. Each case must turn on its own facts. The appellant quite properly acknowledges that the trial judge correctly found that unconscionable conduct by the respondent is essential if she is to succeed. The trial judge went on to find that on these facts the appellant had not established unconscionable conduct. There was ample evidence to support this finding, particularly that in 1978 the appellant knew of her entitlement and with reasonable efforts could have discovered what assets were included in the estate. Moreover there was no evidence of how or why the non distribution occurred or that the respondent’s conduct went beyond mere negligence. [3] There is no basis for the court to interfere with the finding that unconscionable conduct by the respondent had not been established and the appeal must be dismissed. [4] Costs to the respondent fixed at $8000 all inclusive.