Tactical Summons Barrage Leads To Big Indemnity

The case of Opara v. Opara [2014] O.J. No. 4555 provides an example of hotly contested estate litigation involving a disappointed family member who will take the matter to a disproportionate level in an attempt to avoid dismissal of his litigation.

In a motion in September, Justice Laurence Pattillo quashed summonses to witness served by this beneficiary on all opposing counsel and ordered substantial indemnity costs against him, personally, as opposed to the estate. The beneficiary sought to cross-examine opposing counsel in support of his outstanding motion seeking to set aside a settlement and consent orders on the grounds of judicial duress.

This unfortunate estate matter involves one asset — a vacant house — jointly held by two estates, the value of which does not justify the relentless litigation being pursued by one beneficiary against the other beneficiaries of the two estates. The house was jointly owned by two sisters, each of whom had children. The