Helen also brought claims against the estate, Albert’s
accountant and Albert’s lawyer for “fraud, conspiracy and creating an artificial dividend” from one of Albert’s companies. Additionally, she brought a claim against Shannon and Tanya
personally, Albert’s accountant and the trustee in bankruptcy,
alleging “fraud and conspiracy arising out of the improper
appointment of the receiver manager in June of 2007 and consequential improper realization of assets arising out of that
appointment”. Helen claimed damages of $7,500,000, alleging
a conspiracy to destroy her Life Line business by closing the
 Prior to the trial before McKelvey J., Helen abandoned her
claim that the cohabitation agreement was not legally binding
and also abandoned her claim for dependent’s support.
 At the first trial there were 33 days of evidence commencing May 21, 2012 and ending on July 26, 2013. McKelvey J. rendered judgment on February 14, 2014 [ O.J. No. 716, 2014
ONSC 1018 (S.C.J.)]. He rejected all of Helen’s claims of fraud
and conspiracy. He found Helen and Life Line were entitled to
$72,520 from the estate for certain business and rent losses
suffered as a tenant of Alca. As between these parties, he found
the beneficiary designation of Albert’s life insurance policy was
valid. He found that Helen’s payment into court of the sum of
$140,000 pursuant to an order dated February 16, 2010 satisfied
the condition in art. 7(f)( i) of the cohabitation agreement,
which required that she pay that amount to the estate should
she wish to remain living in the residence after three years.
McKelvey J. found the estate was not entitled to an order for
partition and sale. He also found that Helen’s option to purchase
the residence had expired as she had not exercised it within three
years of Albert’s death.
 Before McKelvey J., the estate acknowledged it was
responsible for all the maintenance costs of the residence for the
first three years following Albert’s death as stipulated in art. 7(e).
McKelvey J. dealt with Helen’s claim for expenses she had
incurred in maintaining the residence, as well as her claim for
certain work that needed to be done but had not been done during the first three years. At the time of trial, the only work identified in Helen’s claim that had not been completed was the
replacement of the roof and windows.
 McKelvey J. decided that the aggregate amount of these
claims was $84,106.25 and awarded Helen judgment against the
estate in that amount. He indicated that the funds Helen had
paid into court should be paid out to the estate, subject to a set-off
of the amount he found owing to Helen. McKelvey J. expressed