Once again, there is no principled basis upon which this
court could properly interfere with the sanctions imposed by the
 For these reasons, the appeals of Finkelstein, Azeff,
Bobrow and Miller are dismissed. The appeal of Cheng is allowed
and the findings respecting him are set aside, as are the sanctions
 If the parties cannot agree on the disposition of the costs
of the appeal, they may make written submissions. The
respondent and Cheng shall each file their written submissions
within 15 days of the date of these reasons. The appellants, and
the respondent with respect to Cheng, shall file their written
submissions within 15 days thereafter. No reply submissions are
to be filed without leave of the court. No party’s submissions
shall exceed ten pages in length.
C’s appeal allowed; other appeals dismissed.
Roulston v. McKenny et al.
[Indexed as: Roulston v. McKenny]
2017 ONCA 9
Court of Appeal for Ontario, Doherty, D.M. Brown and Huscroft JJ.A.
January 5, 2017
Limitations — Trustees — Separation agreement requiring deceased
to maintain life insurance policy which designated his ex-wife as beneficiary and providing that ex-wife would have first charge against
deceased’s estate if he failed to do so — Deceased not paying premiums
and policy lapsing — Ex-wife commencing action against estate more
than two years after deceased’s death — Action not statute-barred
as doctrine of fraudulent concealment applied — Special relationship
existing between estate trustee and ex-wife — Trustee engaging in
unconscionable conduct by concealing lack of insurance policy from
ex-wife and then taking position that claim was statute-barred.
A separation agreement entered into by P and the respondent in 2002 required
P to maintain a life insurance policy which designated the respondent as the
beneficiary, failing which the respondent would have a first charge against his
estate in the amount of $150,000. P failed to pay the premiums and the life
insurance policy lapsed before his death. More than two years after P’s death, the
respondent brought an action against the estate for payment of $150,000. On an
application for directions, the application judge found that, while the action was
not brought within the two-year limitation period in s. 38(3) of the Trustee Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c. T.23, it was not statute-barred because the application of the