In the unlikely event the parties agree to effect capital improvements to the residence, they, as tenants in common, would share
the cost equally.
 Article 7(f)( i) provides for two conditions precedent to Helen’s entitlement to remain in the residence. To remain in the residence, Helen must pay the estate $140,000 and she must pay the
ordinary and reasonable costs of maintaining the residence.
Should Helen not wish to incur the cost of a major repair reasonably required to maintain the residence, she may choose not to do
so. But in that event, according to the terms of the agreement,
she would no longer have the right to remain in the residence.
Should Helen vacate the residence, all costs would be borne
equally by the tenants in common until the house is sold pursuant to art. 7(f).
( v) Bad faith
 McKelvey J. rejected the submission that Shannon and
Tanya had acted in bad faith in their administration of the
estate. He explained that the circumstances facing the estate
provided a compelling explanation why events unfolded as they
did. Initially, there were limited funds available to the estate
following Albert’s death. This was complicated by the fact that
the business operated by Albert failed and went into bankruptcy.
There were further problems when Helen objected to Shannon
and Tanya being appointed as executors of the estate. The court
appointed an independent estate trustee and, up to the time of
McKelvey J.’s judgment, the disbursement of funds by the estate
trustee was controlled by the court. McKelvey J. concluded
[at para. 258]:
In these circumstances it would be unfair to characterize any breach by the
Estate of its responsibilities under the cohabitation agreement as being egre-
gious or motivated by ill will towards Ms. Kilitzoglou.
 McKelvey J.’s finding applies to conduct up to the time of
the trial before him. After the trial before McKelvey J., Shannon
and Tanya still had no control over the estate until the removal of
the court-appointed estate trustee. The trial judge could base his
finding of bad faith only on the actions of Shannon and Tanya
after the removal of the court-ordered estate trustee.
 Part of the basis for the trial judge’s finding of bad faith
was the failure of Shannon and Tanya to make the capital repairs
he had identified, and which were “so desperately needed”. As
explained above, all the costs of maintenance that arose in the
first three years had already been adjudicated by McKelvey J.,
and Helen had received funds to repair the roof and windows.