Court Rejects Costs Claim in Guardianship Case After Incapable Person’s Death
Court Rejects Costs Claim in Guardianship Case After Incapable Person’s Death
CASE: Opalinski v. Opalinski, 2024 ONSC 5696
A very significant decision came out that has not been written about much.
This proceeding primarily dealt with costs related to multiple legal battles surrounding Teresa Opalinski’s guardianship and estate. While the case summary details the broader context of the family dispute, the specific matter before the court in Opalinski v. Opalinski, 2024 ONSC 5696 was a motion to determine the allocation of legal costs across three separate proceedings.
This case started as a guardianship despite involving Teresa Opalinski, who passed away on January 31, 2022. The dispute primarily involves her husband, Alexander Opalinski Sr. (born 1927), and their three children: Joanna, Dr. Alexander John (AJ), and Dr. Yvonne Opalinski. Additional involvement comes from Constantine Dalamagas, Yvonne’s husband, who acted as Alexander Sr.’s litigation guardian.
The litigation initially revolved around concerns regarding Teresa’s care, Alexander Sr.’s capacity, and allegations of undue influence and financial mismanagement. It later extended into estate disputes following Teresa’s death.
The court addressed the issue of costs in multiple proceedings related to the guardianship and estate of Teresa Opalinski. Joanna and AJ sought substantial indemnity costs of $235,633.17, arguing that their litigation was necessary to protect Teresa and her estate, while Yvonne and Alexander Sr. opposed the request, noting they had also incurred significant legal expenses ($154,190.60 for Yvonne and $90,600.00 for Alexander Sr.).
The court found that the guardianship application became moot upon Teresa’s death and thus did not warrant an award of costs. It also ruled that the estate litigation was more about family conflict than estate administration, rejecting Joanna’s claim that her efforts benefited Teresa’s estate. Additionally, the court denied Joanna’s request for punitive damages against Yvonne and Constantine. Ultimately, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs for the guardianship and estate litigation, emphasizing that the disputes were driven by personal conflict rather than legal necessity. The parties were invited to submit written arguments on costs related to the estate trustee removal issue.
The court had to grapple with the lack of precedent for awarding costs in a guardianship proceeding where the allegedly incapable person had died before a ruling on the merits, as well as the failure to provide meaningful analysis on how the court’s discretion under the Rules of Civil Procedure could justify awarding costs—particularly against a non-party.
The main principle in Opalinski is that costs in estate and guardianship litigation are not automatically awarded from the estate, especially when the dispute is driven by family conflict rather than the best interests of the incapable person or the estate.
The court applied the “loser pays” principle from general civil litigation, rejecting the idea that estate funds should serve as an “ATM” to cover legal battles between family members. It emphasized that costs should only be awarded from an estate when the litigation was necessary for the proper administration of the estate or arose due to the actions of the testator/incapable person—neither of which applied here. Because the proceedings primarily reflected sibling rivalry and personal grievances, rather than a legitimate legal necessity, the court held that each party should bear their own costs.
