Bellamy Estate, Re, (2013) 414 Sask.R. 182 (CA)

• Judge: Richards, Caldwell and Herauf, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: May 08, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2013), 414 Sask.R. 182 (CA);2013 SKCA 51

Bellamy Estate, Re (2013), 414 Sask.R. 182 (CA);

    575 W.A.C. 182

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.039

Yeong Oh (appellant) v. Trevor Robinson (respondent)

(CACV2360; 2013 SKCA 51)

Indexed As: Bellamy Estate, Re

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Richards, Caldwell and Herauf, JJ.A.

May 8, 2013.

Summary:

Bellamy died. He left a three page handwritten will with various written amendments, before and after his signature. The administrator pendent lite of Bellamy's estate applied to prove the last will and testament in solemn form. At issue was what parts of the document and codicil were to be admitted for probate, whether the holograph will was valid and, if so, the interpretation of various phrases used.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a judgment reported (2011), 374 Sask.R. 175, admitted the holograph will to probate. Bellamy's long-time girlfriend, who took nothing under the holograph will, appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported (2012), 385 Sask.R. 310; 536 W.A.C. 310, dismissed the appeal. An application for leave to appeal was denied by the Supreme Court of Canada (see (2012), 440 N.R. 391). The girlfriend applied to reopen or revisit the original trial decision on a number of unfocused grounds, including repeating her allegations of witness perjury. She also sought to admit "new" evidence.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application. All arguments had been finally determined at trial and on appeal, with the possible exception of the "new" evidence. However, since all of the "new" evidence was in the hands of the girlfriend at the time of the original trial, the court declined to admit it. The girlfriend appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Practice - Topic 5468

Judgments and orders - Finality of - Whether finality precludes relitigation - The plaintiff's claim against an estate was denied at trial, affirmed on appeal and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied - The plaintiff applied to reopen or revisit the trial decision on a number of unfocused grounds, including repeating her allegations of witness perjury - The plaintiff also sought to admit "new" evidence - A Chambers judge dismissed the application, finding that all of the issues had been finally determined by the courts, with the possible exception of the "new" evidence" - However, since the "new" evidence was in the plaintiff's possession at the time of the original trial, the judge declined to admit it - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal affirmed the decision - The plaintiff was effectively attempting to relitigate the original trial and the appeal from it - The plaintiff needed to understand that the decisions of the courts were final.

Counsel:

Yeong Oh, on her own behalf;

Nolan J. Dooley, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on May 8, 2013, before Richards, Caldwell and Herauf, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

On May 8, 2013, the judgment of the Court was delivered orally by Richards, J.A., with written reasons filed on the same date.