BEREZAN v CHIZAWSKY

The dispute arose out of a family property Action involving a ranching operation jointly associated with the deceased, Mr. Chizawsky, and his former adult interdependent partner, Ms. Berezan. After Mr. Chizawsky’s sudden death, his adult daughter, Ms. Chizawsky, applied in Family Chambers to be designated as litigation representative and to obtain exclusive possession of the home, ranch assets, and related restraining relief. Ms. Berezan sought a preservation Order for the ranch operation and assets, confirmation of her ownership of the home by right of survivorship, and a restraining Order against interference. The Court granted Ms. Berezan’s application and dismissed Ms. Chizawsky’s.

Justice McLeod held that Rule 4.34 stayed the family property Action and Counterclaim upon Mr. Chizawsky’s death. Continuation required an appropriate litigation representative. Under Rule 2.13, the proper litigation representative is ordinarily the estate’s personal representative, whose authority speaks from the time of death. The daughter did not establish standing under Rule 2.13 and her Affidavit did not meet the form and content required for a self-appointment under Rule 2.14. She also did not qualify for a Court appointment under Rule 2.15 because a probate process for named personal representatives was apparently underway, making a Court designation premature.

McLeod J. also noted Section 13(1) of the Family Property Act, which restricts distribution of estate property for six months absent consent of an adult interdependent partner. In the circumstances, immediate management and preservation were to proceed through proper estate representatives rather than through a beneficiary’s unilateral control. This approach aligned with Perrisini v Perrisini (unreported), where a similar self-appointment was declined in urgent post-death circumstances.

In the result, the Court dismissed Ms. Chizawsky’s Application.