Geoffrey Stockley Applicant And: Gail Hopkins in Her Own Right, v. as Power of Attorney for, 2023 NLSC 13

court crest IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR GENERAL DIVISION Citation : Stockley v. Hopkins , 2023 NLSC 13 Date : January 31, 2023 Docket : 202101G5480 Between: Geoffrey Stockley Applicant And: Gail Hopkins in Her Own Right, and as Power of Attorney for GLADYS STOCKLEY Respondent Before: Justice Garrett A. Handrigan Place of Hearing: St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador Dates of Hearing: January 13, 2023

Summary: W. Lloyd Andrews is Executor of the Last Will and Testament and Codicil of Gladys Stockley. He applied to intervene in an Originating Application that Geoffrey Stockley brought against Gail Hopkins in her own right and as Enduring Power of Attorney of Gladys Stockley. Mr. Andrews also asked leave to apply to the Court for directions if he is permitted to intervene. The Court granted leave to Mr. Andrews to intervene in the Originating Application and also to seek directions from the Court on legal questions. Costs are in the cause of the Originating Application. Appearances:

John Bruce Appearing on behalf of the Applicant Liam O'Brien and Sonya Vey Appearing on behalf of the Respondent Paul Coxworthy Appearing on behalf of the Proposed Intervenor and Executor of the Estate of Mabel Gladys Stockley Authorities Cited: CASES CONSIDERED: Dalton v. Hutton, (2003), (NL SC), 222 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 97, 663 A.P.R. 97 (N.L.S.C.);Davis, Re, 1936 CarswellOnt 134, [1936] O.W.N. 146 (H.C.J.); Fulford, Re (1913), (ON SC), 29 O.L.R. 375, 14D.L.R. 844 (S.C.); Jones v. McLeod, 2017 BCSC 1478; STATUTES CONSIDERED: Trustee Act, R.S.N.L. 1990, c.

T-10; Trustee Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 464; RULES CONSIDERED: Rules of the Supreme Court, 1986, S.N.L. 1986, c. 42, Sch. D REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Handrigan, J.: INTRODUCTION [1] On October 13, 2021, Geoffrey Stockley filed an Originating Application in this Court, naming Gail Hopkins, in her own rightand as Power of Attorney for Gladys Stockley, as Respondent. Mr. Stockley asked for a variety of relief against Ms.

Hopkins, including adeclaration that he was entitled to “an unconditional gift from Gladys Stockley in the amount of five hundred thousand dollars,” or, I assume alternatively, although he did not state it in thealternative, an “Order that Gail Hopkins in her capacity as Power of Attorney for Gladys Stockley forthwith effect payment of anunconditional gift from Gladys Stockley to Geoffrey Stockley in the amount of five hundred thousand dollars” (at paras. 1 & 2, page 5 ofthe Originating Application). Mr. Stockley’s Originating Application is still outstanding. [2] In the meantime, on December 13, 2022, W.

Lloyd Andrews filed an Interlocutory Application in the same cause asking “forleave to intervene in the… [Originating Application] pursuant to Rule 7.05 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1986, [S.N.L. 1986, c. 42,Sch. D] and for the direction of this Honourable Court pursuant to

section 25 of the Trustee Act, R.S.N.L. 1990, c. T-10” (at para. 20 ofthe Interlocutory Application). I heard Mr. Andrews’ Interlocutory Application on January 13, 2023, and reserved my judgment untilnow. The Issues 1. Should W. Lloyd Andrews have leave to intervene in Geoffrey Stockley’s Originating Application? 2. If he is given leave to intervene, may W. Lloyd Andrews apply for directions from the Court under

section 25 of the Trustee Act? The Law Rules of the Supreme Court, 1986 – Leave to Intervene [3] Rule 7.05 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1986 provides, as relevant here:

(1) Any person may, with leave of the court, intervene in a proceeding and become a party thereto if (

a) that person claims an interest in the subject matter of the proceeding … ...

(2) The application for leave to intervene shall be supported by an affidavit containing the grounds thereof and shall have attached

thereto, when practical, a pleading setting forth the claim…for which intervention is sought.

(3) On the application, the Court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights ofthe parties to the proceeding and it may grant such order as it thinks just. Case Law – Leave to Intervene [4] I discussed applying Rule 7.05 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1986 in Dalton v. Hutton, (2003), (NLSC), 222 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 97, 663 A.P.R. 97 (N.L.S.C.).

This is what I said of the Rule at that time: 34 Applicants to intervene in proceedings must show that they have a sufficient interest in the proceedings; that they can make a usefulcontribution; and, that their participation will not unduly lengthen or delay the proceedings nor impose an injustice or excessive burdenon the parties. ... [original emphasis] Trustee Act – Applications for Directions [5]

Section 25 of the Trustee Act provides, as relevant here: 25. (1) … [A]n executor… may apply to the court or a judge of the court on a question respecting the management or administration ofthe…property or assets of a testator… .

Trustee Act – Case Law [6] In Davis, Re, 1936 CarswellOnt 134, [1936] O.W.N. 146 (H.C.J.), Kelly, J. of the Ontario High Court of Justice addressedwhen executors may apply to the court for directions: It seems to have been overlooked however that … executors are protected from all liability if they honestly and with due care exercisethe discretion vested in them; that the responsibility is theirs and cannot be shifted upon the Court; and that the advice which the Court isauthorized to give is as to legal matters or legal difficulties arising in the discharge of the duties of the executors, not advice with regardto matters concerning which the executors' judgment and discretion must govern. [7] Kelly, J. in Davis, Re relied on this quotation from Fulford, Re (1913), (ON SC), 29 O.L.R. 375, 14 D.L.R.844 (S.C.) for his opinion: 24 ...

The executors are protected from all liability if they honestly, and with due care exercise the discretion vested in them. But theresponsibility is theirs and cannot be shifted upon the Court. The executors cannot come to the Court and ask whether the present is agood time or a bad time to sell stock or anything else or ask whether a price offered is sufficient or insufficient.

The advice which theCourt is authorised to give is not of that type or kind; it is advice as to legal matters or legal difficulties arising in the discharge of theduties of the executors, not advice with regard to matters concerning which the executors' judgment and discretion must govern. [8] In Jones v. McLeod, 2017 BCSC 1478, Pearlman, J. of the British Columbia Supreme Court considered “the scope of thequestions which may be asked of the court on an application under s. 86 (1) [of the Trustee Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 464]”.

He concluded,referring to Fulford, Re and to another decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court (Chemainus Team Development Training Trust(Trustee of), Re, 2004 BCSC 1605) that relied on Fulford, Re that “an executor or trustee may seek the advice, opinion or directions ofthe court on a legal question and then act on that advice” (Jones v. McLeod, at para. 33); [underlining mine]. [9] Pearlman, J. was, as I noted above, considering section 86 (1) of the British Columbia Trustee Act, which is quite similar tosection 25 of our Trustee Act.

I put them side-by-side in the table below for ease of comparison [underlining mine]. Section 86 (1) of the BC Trustee Act Section 25 (1) of the NL Trustee Act86

(1) A trustee, executor or administrator may,without commencing any other proceeding,apply by petition to the court, or by summons ona written statement to a Supreme Court judge inchambers, for the opinion, advice or direction ofthe court on a question respecting themanagement or administration of the trustproperty or the assets of a will-maker orintestate. 25.

(1) A trustee, an executor or administratormay, without the institution of an action, applyto the court or a judge of the court on a questionrespecting the management or administration ofthe trust, property or assets of a testator orintestate. [10] This is the law I will apply to the issues I stated above. I turn now to analyze those issues, starting with the background to them. Background [11] Smith Stockley Limited (SSL) operates from 264 LeMarchant Road, St. John’s, NL. Its primary business is selling plumbing,heating, and industrial supplies.

SSL is associated with two other companies, Stockley Holdings Limited (SHL) and 10141Newfoundland Limited (10141), for which it is the operating arm. SHL owns 1000 preferred shares and 100,000 common shares of SSLand is SSL’s only shareholder. SHL also owns one share of 10141, which represents 50% of the issued shares of 10141. George Stockleyoperated SSL on his own for many years and he ran it as a “family business.” SHL, SSL, and 10141 are generally referred to as the“Stockley Companies.” [12] George Stockley died on August 25, 2020.

At the time he held 552 Class A preferred shares and 1891 Class B preferred shares

in SHL, as well as 50% of the common shares of 10141, so that he held one-half of the shares in 10141, of which SHL owns the rest. George Stockley was married to Gladys Stockley, and she held 558 Class B preferred shares in SHL. Gladys Stockley is also deceased – she died July 1, 2022, with a Last Will and Testament and Codicil to it in which she named W. Lloyd Andrews, her executor. This Court issued Letters of Probate to Ms. Stockley’s Will on October 11, 2022, appointing Mr.

Andrews executor. [ 13 ] George and Gladys Stockley had four children: three sons, Gregory, Glenn, and Geoffrey and one daughter, Gail Hopkins. Each of Stockley children holds 25 common shares and 1 Class C preference share (non-voting) in SHL. It appears presently that the shares which George and Gladys formerly held in the Stockley Companies remain with their estates. [ 14 ] The Stockley Companies did well, George and Gladys Stockley prospered, and they were generous to the children.

For example, in an Originating Application that Glenn Stockley issued from this Court on November 12, 2019 (Court File No. 201901G7145), in which he named his sister, his mother, his father, his siblings and the Stockley Companies as respondents (eight of them in all), Glenn Stockley claimed: 45. From 2010 the Parents [George and Gladys Stockley] began to support the Applicant [Glenn Stockley] financially to a greater extent by: (

i) providing the Applicant directly with large sums of money on a frequent basis; and (ii) by paying the Applicant’s various expenses directly. In particular, the Parents made direct payments to the Applicant’s credit card accounts on a frequent basis. The income support paid to the Applicant by the Parents was net of taxes. The financial support received by the Applicant from his Parents from 2010 onward was approximately $25,000 dollars per month. 46. On or about early spring 2012 the Second Respondent [George Stockley] provided the Applicant with income support by way of a cheque for $250,000 dollars. 47.

Between December 2012 and August 2017 the Parents provided the Applicant with direct income support totaling not less than $692,818.12 dollars. 48.

From 2008 the Parents regularly paid the Applicant’s substantial credit card expenses. [ 15 ] In his Originating Application, Glenn Stockley also noted that his sister, Gail Hopkins, who he named as First Respondent had held Enduring Powers of Attorney from their father and mother since July 24, 2015, and he questioned the validity of the powers of attorney “as neither of his parents had capacity to execute same on or about July 24, 2015” (at para. 5 of the Originating Application issued on November 12, 2019) when they reportedly signed them. [ 16 ] Glenn Stockley alleged that Gail Hopkins relied on the powers of attorney for personal benefit, including by: • Facilitating the takeover of the Stockley Companies by her sons, Richard Hopkins and Paul Hopkins at a valuation below the fair market value. • Unilaterally cutting the income he was receiving from his parents by 90%; or as Mr.

Stockley stated in paragraph 49 of his Originating Application: “On or about November 2017, in an effort to advance her own personal interests, the First Respondent [Gail Hopkins] unilaterally and arbitrarily reduced the Applicant’s income support from his Parents from approximately $25,000 dollars per month to $3,000 dollars per month.” [ 17 ] Glenn Stockley asked for a variety of relief from the Court, including: • Declaring that the Enduring Powers of Attorney Gail Hopkins from her parents were “invalid and terminated” (at para. 56). • Finding that Ms.

Hopkins “has not acted in the best interests of the Donors [George Stockley and Gladys Stockley] (at para. 57) … and seeks an order: (

i) reinstating the Applicant’s support income from the parents to its historic quantum; and (ii) that the Applicant shall be restrained from voting the parents’ shares at any future shareholders meeting to elect Richard Hopkins and Paul Hopkins as directors of SHL and 10141. [ 18 ] Glenn Stockley asked for other relief involving the powers of attorney and the Stockley Companies, the details of which appear more specifically in the Originating Application. [ 19 ] Meanwhile on June 26, 2019, Gail Hopkins had already filed an Originating Application of her own by which she sought relief against SHL and 10141, including: • Orders that SHL and 10141 hold shareholders’ meetings; and • A declaration that she be permitted to “…vote as attorney for Gladys Stockley and George Stockley at any shareholder meeting of SHL or 10141” (at para. 43(d)) of Gail Hopkins’ June 26, 2019, Originating Application). [ 20 ] Glenn Stockley saw the relief that Ms.

Hopkins was seeking in her June 26, 2019 Originating Application as troubling. This is how he expressed it in paragraph 42 of the Originating Application he filed on November 12, 2019: 42. Richard Hopkins and Paul Hopkins desire to purchase SSL.

The Applicant [Glenn Stockley] states that the relief the First Respondent [Gail Hopkins] is seeking in matter having court file number 201901G4275 [the June 26, 2019, Originating Application] is intended to allow the First Respondent to elect Richard Hopkins and Paul Hopkins as directors of SSL and this intention puts the First Respondent in a conflict of interest position vis-à-vis the Parents [George Stockley and Gladys Stockley].

If the First Respondent is authorized to use the authority pursuant to the Enduring Powers of Attorney to vote the Parents’ shares in support of the election of Richard Hopkins and Paul Hopkins to the Board of Directors of SSL, that this development would create a conflict of interest situation where the proposed purchasers of SSL are also its Directors. It is a conflict of interest that places the First Respondent’s interests above those of the Parents and has potential negative consequences related to a future sale of SSL to Richard Hopkins and Paul Hopkins.

[ 21 ] Mr.

Stockley continued this theme into the next paragraph of his Originating Application and alleged in it, as I have already noted, that “the First Respondent has an interest in effecting a sale of SSL to Richard Hopkins and Paul Hopkins at a valuation below the fair market value of SSL.” [ 22 ] Ultimately, Court File No. 201901G4275 (Gail Hopkins’s June 26, 2019, Originating Application) and Court File No. 201901G7145 (Glenn Stockley’s November 12, 2019, Originating Application) were “consolidated” so that the Court would proceed first with Glenn Stockley’s application to set aside the Enduring Powers of Attorney that Gail Hopkins held from her parents and then Gail Hopkins’ application would proceed if her Enduring Powers of Attorney were confirmed. [ 23 ] In the meantime, when both matters were before the Court for case management on December 2, 2019, the Court suggested that the parties might consider addressing them in a settlement conference, which they eventually did.

From that settlement conference, which dealt with both Originating Applications as well as Court File No. 202001E19622, In George D. Stockley, Re, deceased, the parties filed a Consent Order on June 4, 2021. It provided, in part: 1. The Enduring Power of Attorney of Gladys Stockley, dated July 24, 2015, appointing Gail Hopkins as attorney for Gladys Stockley is valid and has full force and effect in accordance with its terms. 2. The Enduring Power of Attorney of George Stockley, dated July 24, 2015, appointing Gail Hopkins, as attorney, was valid and had full force and effect in accordance with its terms.

By operation of law, Gail Hopkins has ceased to be attorney for George Stockley at the time of his death. 3. Gladys Stockley, by her Attorney Gail Hopkins, shall forthwith gift the lump sum amounts of $500,000 to each of Gail Hopkins, Glenn Stockley, Gregory Stockley, and Geoffrey Stockley (the “Gift”) conditional upon the execution of a release attached hereto as

Schedule “C” by each releasor. [ 24 ] The next eight paragraphs of the Consent Order deal with the relationships of the four Stockley siblings with the Stockley Companies, payments they might expect from the Stockley Companies, the tax consequences of such payments and the like. The Consent Order ends with this paragraph: 12. The Applications having court file numbers 201901G7145 [Glenn Stockley’s November 12, 2019 Originating Application] and 201901G4275 [Gail Hopkins’s June 26, 2019 Originating Application] are discontinued, with no order as to costs.

Each party shall bear their own costs on each of the foregoing applications.

The Applicants in each of the foregoing Applications shall file a Notice of Discontinuance to this Honourable Court with the consent of the parties to each of these Applications. [ 25 ] Counsel for each of Gail Hopkins (in her own right and as Attorney for Gladys Stockley), Glenn Stockley, Gregory Stockley, Geoffrey Stockley, the Estate of George Stockley and the Stockley Companies signed the Consent Order on June 3, 2021, and filed it on June 4, 2021. [ 26 ] Paragraph 3 of the Consent Order refers to the release that each of the Stockley children would sign when the “Gift” was paid to them.

The release is attached as

Schedule “C” to the Consent Order and reads thus: RELEASE AND DISCHARGE The undersigned [hereinafter called the “Releasor”] does hereby acknowledge to have this day received from GAIL HOPKINS , in her own right and as attorney for GLADYS STOCKLEY , [hereinafter “the Releasees”] the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) in full and final settlement of all claims of any kind or nature whatsoever, which he may have or allege to have against the said Releasees, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, and representatives, arising out of the issues contemplated in the legal action commenced in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, General Division, being 2019 01G 7145 ( the “Application” ) [Glenn Stockley’s November 12, 2019 Originating Application] AND in consideration thereof the Releasor does hereby grant full and final discharge to the Releasees in relation to the Application; AND FURTHER this present transaction, settlement and compromise shall not constitute an admission in any way on behalf of the parties in whose favor this release is given.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, and for greater clarity, nothing in this herein release prevents or encumbers the Releasor from making any claim against the Releasees for actions taken by the Releasees that are not connected to the issues raised in the Application or any future conduct of the Releasees. Further, nothing in this herein Release prevents or encumbers the Releasor from making any claim(

s) against the Releasees pursuant to the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act , R.S.N.L. 1990, c. E-11 sections 6 and/or 10, or any successor legislation thereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Releasor has hereunto, his hand and seal subscribed and set this th day of June, 2021. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED by the said , in the presence of: [ 27 ] On October 13, 2021, Geoffrey Stockley filed an Originating Application in this Court naming Gail Hopkins as Respondent, both in her own right and as Power of Attorney for Gladys Stockley. The Court file for the matter is 202101G5480 and in it Mr.

Stockley asked for this relief: 1) A declaration pursuant to Rule 7.16 of the Rules of Court, that Geoffrey Stockley is entitled to an unconditional gift from Gladys Stockley in the amount of five hundred thousand dollars. 2) An Order that Gail Hopkins in her capacity as Power of Attorney for Gladys Stockley forthwith effect payment of an unconditional gift from Gladys Stockley to Geoffrey Stockley in the amount of five hundred thousand dollars.

[ 28 ] Mr. Stockley also asked for punitive damages and costs on a “solicitor and client basis.” [ 29 ] Mr. Stockley acknowledges the Consent Order of June 4, 2021, which provided for the $500,000 payments that Ms. Hopkins was to make to herself and each of her brothers on behalf of Gladys Stockley. Mr. Stockley also notes in paragraph 11 of his Originating Application that “Gail executed a release to herself on June 17, 2021”; and that “[t]his entitled her to the immediate advance of the $500,000 gift from Gladys.” [ 30 ] Mr. Stockley describes the release that Ms.

Hopkins signed for herself as a “nullity” (at para. 13) and says that “Gail’s demand of insisting the gifts from Gladys to her siblings be conditional upon a release being granted by them to Gail in her own right and as attorney for Gladys, amounts to an abuse of the powers granted to her under the EPA [Enduring Power of Attorney]” (at para. 14). [ 31 ] On December 22, 2022, W. Lloyd Andrews, as Executor of the Estate of Mabel Gladys Stockley, filed an Interlocutory Application to Geoffrey Stockley’s October 13, 2021 Originating Application. Mr.

Andrews asks in paragraph 10 of his Interlocutory Application “for leave of the Court to intervene in ... [Geoffrey Stockley’s October 13, 2021 Originating Application] pursuant to Rule 7.05 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1986 and for the Court’s direction pursuant to

section 25 of the Trustee Act , NL, and for no other purpose.” [ 32 ] Gladys Stockley died July 1, 2022. Ms. Stockley left a Last Will and Testament and Codicil to it in which she named Mr. Andrews as her executor. This Court granted Letters of Probate to Ms. Stockley’s Will and Codicil on October 11, 2022. The Letters note “the administration of all and singular the estate and effects of the said deceased [Gladys Stockley] was granted by the aforesaid Court to W.

Lloyd Andrews, of Mount Pearl, in the Province aforesaid, gentleman , the executor named in the said Will, having been first sworn and faithfully to administer the same, by paying the just debts of the said deceased and the legacies contained in the said Will and Codicil so far as thereunto bound by law, and by distributing the residue (if any) according to law” [emphasis in original]. [ 33 ] This is the background to the Interlocutory Application. I turn now to discuss Mr.

Andrews’ application against this background and to consider, in particular, whether he should have leave to intervene in Geoffrey Stockley’s October 13, 2021, Originating Application; and, if so, whether he may apply to this Court for directions under

section 25 of the Trustee Act . Discussion - Leave to Intervene [ 34 ] Leave to intervene will be granted under Rule 7.05 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1986 , to applicants who can show (

i) that they have a sufficient interest in the proceedings; (ii) that they can make a useful contribution; and (iii) that their participation will not unduly lengthen or delay the proceedings nor impose an injustice or excessive burden on the parties. (

i) Sufficient Interest in Proceedings [ 35 ] In his Originating Application, Geoffrey Stockley asks for an order that “Gail Hopkins in her capacity as Power of Attorney for Gladys Stockley forthwith effect payment of an unconditional gift from Gladys Stockley to Geoffrey Stockley in the amount of five hundred thousand dollars” (at para. 2 of the claim for relief). When Mr.

Stockley filed his Originating Application on October 13, 2021, Gladys Stockley was still alive and was operating through her Attorney, Gail Hopkins, as the parties, including Geoffrey Stockley, acknowledged by the Consent Order they filed on June 4, 2021. [ 36 ] However, when Ms. Stockley died on July 1, 2022, the Gail Hopkins’ Enduring Power of Attorney for Ms. Stockley lapsed and was no longer effective. It falls to Mr. Andrews to represent Ms. Stockley’s interests and this Court assigned that obligation to him by appointing Mr. Andrews as Executor of Ms.

Stockley’s Last Will and Testament and Codicil on October 11, 2022. [ 37 ] In paragraph 6 of his Interlocutory Application to intervene, Mr.

Andrews says that “through his legal counsel, [he] was notified of the Originating Application of Geoffrey Stockley on or about October 20, 2022.” He also says, in paragraph 7 of his Interlocutory Application that “[o]n or about November 2, 2022, legal counsel for the [ sic ] Geoffrey Stockley advised…[my legal counsel] that it was the position of his client [Geoffrey Stockley] that the claim made by the [October 13, 2021] Originating Application is a contingent liability of the Estate of Mabel Gladys Stockley and that an appropriate holdback from the distribution of her Estate is required pending the determination of that claim.” [ 38 ] It is clear from the preceding that Mr.

Andrews, as Executor of the Last Will and Testament and Codicil of Gladys Stockley has shown he has a sufficient interest in the subject of Geoffrey Stockley’s Originating Application to intervene in the proceedings. (ii) Useful Contribution [ 39 ] Mr. Andrews is confident that he can make a useful contribution in disposing of Geoffrey Stockley’s Originating Application. Mr. Stockley called upon Gail Hopkins to address the issues he raised in his Application in her own right but primarily in her capacity as Enduring Power of Attorney for Gladys Stockley.

I note, for example, that he requested an order from this Court “that Gail Hopkins in her capacity as Power of Attorney for Gladys Stockley forthwith effect payment of an unconditional gift from Gladys Stockley to Geoffrey Stockley in the amount of five hundred thousand dollars.” [ 40 ] Whatever personal liability, if any, Ms. Hopkins may have to Geoffrey Stockley, she no longer has any liability as Power of Attorney for Gladys Stockley. That ended when Ms. Stockley died and the power of attorney lapsed and is no longer effective. Any liabilities that Ms. Stockley had when she died pass to her Estate and Mr.

Andrews represents and speaks for it. No one else has authority to do so. He is the only one who can make a contribution to Geoffrey Stockley’s Originating Application on behalf of the Gladys Stockley’s Estate, if one is required. [ 41 ] Otherwise, Mr. Andrews believes that his intervention into the Originating Application may have further salutary effect: “his seeking the direction of this Honourable Court in this proceeding may avoid a multiplicity of proceedings in relation to the issues raised

in the Originating Application and may avoid inconsistent results if there were to be a multiplicity of proceedings” (at para. 14 of the Interlocutory Application). (iii) Lengthening or Delaying the Proceedings [ 42 ] Mr.

Andrews claims further in paragraph 14 of his Interlocutory Application that “the limited scope of his proposed participation in the proceeding will not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.” He justifies his submission by the following: “he does not contemplate that he would seek to file any evidence by affidavit, to call any witnesses, or to cross-examine any witnesses called by the original parties to this proceeding, if granted intervenor status.” [ 43 ] Overall, I find that Mr.

Andrews, as Executor of the Last Will and Testament and Codicil of Gladys Stockley has a sufficient interest in the Originating Application to be involved in it; he will make a useful contribution if called upon to participate; and his participation will not lengthen or unduly delay them. In the result, I allow his application and grant him leave to participate in the Geoffrey Stockley’s October 13, 2021 Originating Application. Discussion – Applying for Directions [ 44 ] It is premature to discuss what directions as to his management or administration of the Estate of Gladys Stockley Mr.

Andrews may seek from this Court under

section 25 of the Trustee Act . I reserve that discussion until Mr. Andrews applies for directions, but I grant him leave to do so should he feel the need. The only caveat I state as to directions that he may seek is, to paraphrase Fulford, Re that I discussed earlier in these reasons: They may only be on a legal question. Other Considerations [ 45 ] I have recited at length, perhaps more fully than may be necessary to deal with Mr. Andrews’ Interlocutory Application, the history of this matter.

In the first instance, I wanted to establish the line connecting the three Originating Applications: - File No. 201901G4275 - Gail Hopkins’s June 26, 2019, Originating Application; - File No. 201901G7145 - Glenn Stockley’s November 12, 2019, Originating Application; and - File No. 202101G5480 - Geoffrey Stockley’s May 6, 2022, Originating Application. [ 46 ] Because Geoffrey Stockley by his Originating Application is applying for relief based on the Consent Judgment that disposed of the other two Originating Applications it is necessary to know of the nature, progress, and resolution of those Applications. [ 47 ] However, I also wanted to highlight the extensive litigation that has already arisen from within the Stockley family, both as to each other in their personal capacities and for their involvement with the Stockley Companies.

And I have not reviewed all of the litigation that has occurred, just so much of it as is relevant to the Interlocutory Application. The parties, with the assistance of this Court, appear to have reached a reasonable consensus on important issues with the Consent Order that they filed on June 4, 2021. [ 48 ] I commend to them to address the remaining concerns they have in the spirit from which the Consent Order resulted.

Litigation is always divisive, especially within families; it can have a serious deleterious impact on family businesses, like the Stockley Companies; it will be frustrating; it is invariably expensive; and ultimately it may not deliver the satisfaction that the parties are looking for, even to those who “succeed”. Costs [ 49 ] I will leave the costs of the Interlocutory Application in the cause of the Originating Application to which it relates.

Summary and Disposition [ 50 ] W. Lloyd Andrews is Executor of the Last Will and Testament and Codicil of Gladys Stockley. He applied to intervene in an Originating Application that Geoffrey Stockley brought against Gail Hopkins in her own right and as Enduring Power of Attorney of Gladys Stockley. Mr. Andrews also asked leave to apply to the Court for directions if he is permitted to intervene. [ 51 ] The Court granted leave to Mr. Andrews to intervene in the Originating Application and also to seek directions from the Court on legal questions. Costs are in the cause of the Originating Application.

Order [ 52 ] In the result, I order that: 1. W. Lloyd Andrews as Executor of the Last Will and Testament of Gladys Stockley has leave to intervene in an Originating Application that Geoffrey Stockley brought against Gail Hopkins in her own right and as Enduring Power of Attorney of Gladys Stockley (Court File No. 202101G5480).

2. W. Lloyd Andrews may seek directions from the Court on legal questions arising in the Originating Application. 3. Costs are in the cause of the Originating Application. _____________________________ Garrett A. Handrigan Justice