Janet M. Henley, K.C. Applicant And: Brian A. Henley First Respondent And: John J. Henley Second Respondent And: Christopher M. Henley Third Respondent, 2023 NLSC 49

court crest IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR GENERAL DIVISION Citation : Henley Estate (Re) , 2023 NLSC 49 Date : March 28, 2023 Docket : 201501E14496 In The Matter of the Estate of Alec G. Henley, late of the City of St. John's, in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, retired businessman Between: Janet M. Henley, K.C. Applicant And: Brian A. Henley First Respondent And: John J. Henley Second Respondent And: Christopher M. Henley Third Respondent Before: Justice Vikas Khaladkar Place of Hearing: St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador Dates of Hearing: November 1 and 7, 2018; and

February 21 and 24, 2023

Summary: The Applicant had made an application to have the Public Trustee replace all of the Executors of the Estate. Orsborn J. denied the application and indicated that the Court would provide directions to resolve the impasse encountered by the Executors. However, the issue of costs had not been dealt with and Orsborn J. has since retired. I have exercised my discretion to refrain from awarding any costs in this matter. Appearances: Nicholas J.G. Avis, K.C. Appearing on behalf of Janet M. Henley, K.C. at the initial hearing Janet M. Henley, K.C. Appearing on behalf of herself Melissa M.

Saunders Appearing on behalf of the First Respondent at the initial hearing Douglas W. Wright Appearing on behalf of the First Respondent in relation to Costs John A. Bruce Appearing on behalf of the Second and Third Respondents at the initial hearing Allison S. Conway Appearing on behalf of the Second and Third Respondents Authorities Cited: CASES CONSIDERED: Henley Estate , 2018 NLSC 222 ; Henley Estate (Re) , 2022 NLSC 103 RULES CONSIDERED: Rules of the Supreme Court, 1986 , S.N.L. 1986, c. 42, Sch. D REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Khaladkar J. : INTRODUCTION

[ 1 ] The Applicant applied for an order that the Executors of the Estate of Alec G. Henley (the “Estate”) be removed and replaced by the Public Trustee. [ 2 ] Orsborn J. (as he then was) heard the Application to Remove the Executors on November 1 and 7, 2018 and dismissed it. He felt that the impasse faced by the Executors could be solved by the Court providing directions on the disputed issues. His decision can be found at Henley Estate , 2018 NLSC 222 . Orsborn J. did not make any order in relation to costs.

On that topic he wrote, “I will defer a decision of costs on this application pending further submissions after completion of the directions proceedings in this Court”. [ 3 ] I heard the Application for Directions and wrote a decision that is reported as: Henley Estate (Re) , 2022 NLSC 103 and, with respect to costs, I stated as follows: This is a family disagreement that has spiraled out of control. The awarding of costs would only exacerbate the already strained relationships in this family.

All of the parties have sufficient means, and need not be compensating one another because they have sought to express views that they strongly hold. [ 4 ] My decision as to costs in the Application for Directions was suspended on account of two of the parties having filed an Offer to Settle pursuant to Rule 20A of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1986 , S.N.L. 1986, c. 42, Sch. D .

As a result, I awarded costs to the Offerors in the Offer to Settle on the basis contemplated by the Rule 20A Application. [4] Despite the Rule 20A Application, I remain of the view that it is unfortunate, indeed, that parties have come to this juncture. Their inability to compromise their views and arrive at a consensus has affected their personal relationships with one another and created a disservice to the wishes of their parents. [ 5 ] The Applicant brought the Application to Remove the Executors in an attempt to have an independent third party solve a dispute that had been festering for years.

She thought that the cost of the Public Trustee would have consumed less in resources than proceeding with the obtaining of directions. I suspect that she was probably correct. [ 6 ] The Second Respondent is not seeking costs against the Applicant. [ 7 ] I remain of the view that the awarding of costs would only serve to fan the flames of continuing discord and I am disinclined to change my opinion about the awarding of costs in this matter. conclusion [ 8 ] Each of the parties shall bear their own costs of the Application to Remove the Executors. _____________________________ Vikas Khaladkar Justice