MELESHKO v HRYNIW

The Estate of John Hrynew brought an Application for Summary Dismissal of a challenge to the proposed distribution of the Estate, pursuant to Rule 7.3(1)(b). The challenge to the distribution of the Estate came from Mr. Hrynew’s step-children (the “Children”), who alleged that their mother and Mr. Hrynew had mutual wills, and that Mr. Hrynew’s Estate owed them $250,000 for their expenses and time spent taking care of him.

Justice Millsap considered the test for Summary Dismissal, first asking if the record before the Court was sufficient for summary determination. In doing so, Millsap J. applied principles from Weir-Jones Technical Services Incorporated v Purolator Courier Ltd, 2019 ABCA 49, and held that the record was thorough and complete. All potential parties and witnesses were represented on the record, with Questioning having occurred in relation to many of them.

Justice Millsap found that the Children’s position that their mother and Mr. Hrynew had mutual wills was based on circumstantial evidence which they could not corroborate. Further, the litigation had been ongoing for almost ten years and, in that time, the Children had not produced any evidence relating to the alleged $250,000 they claimed to be owed.

 Ultimately, there was the Children were required to put their “best foot forward” to advance their claim, and they fell well short of identifying a meritorious claim. Accordingly, the claim was summarily dismissed.