The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the defendant estate trustees from a judgment concerning expenses for a residence that was subject to a cohabitation agreement. Plaintiff and deceased had cohabitation agreement that provided the plaintiff with option of remaining in residence. On appeal, it was held that given that plaintiff was not paying all of costs of maintaining residence, defendants could reasonably take position that she had not complied with agreement and that residence should be sold.

[The judge] must consider whether [the plaintiff] has standing to bring an application under Rule 16-46 [of the Queen's Bench Rules], to require proof of the will in solemn form, or for an order revoking the grant of probate under Rule 16-47. . . . . . Rule 16-46 ... permits an application by any person who “... is or may be interested in the estate.” The grammatical and ordinary meaning of the word “may” in Rule 16-46 connotes possibility ... the use of the phrase “may be interested” means that a person does not have to establish a definite interest in the estate to establish standing. A possible interest, within the context of the applicable law and the specific factual circumstances, is enough to ground standing.

In the deceased's will, he only left his wife a life estate in his share of a condominium. The deceased's children were made his attorneys through a power of attorney. The children were beneficiaries, and one of them was executor. The wife, through her daughter as litigation guardian (applicant), brought an unsuccessful application for an accounting and equalization under Pt. IV of Family Property Act. An appeal was filed and dismissed. The court held that the applicant was not entitled as of a right to an accounting before a master. The applicant was entitled to an accounting, which occurred before applications judge.