Brett Turnquist

Counsel for the Applicant, as personal representative of his sister’s estate. The Applicant opposed the Respondent nephew’s request to question the drafting solicitor before the Estate’s security for costs application could be heard. The Deceased died in 2022 leaving an estate of approximately $1.75M, and the Respondent challenged her 2019 Will for alleged incapacity and suspicious circumstances. The Court held that security for costs involves only a limited merits review and does not permit third‑party questioning on disputed facts or credibility. As the Deceased’s medical records and the drafting lawyer’s file had already been produced, the Court found the record sufficient, dismissed the Respondent’s request to question the drafting solicitor, and directed the security for costs application to proceed.

Counsel for the Applicant, as personal representative of his sister’s estate. The Deceased died in 2022 leaving a $1.75M estate, and her nephew, the Respondent, challenged her 2019 Will, which revoked a previous Will that benefited him, alleging the Deceased lacked capacity and was vulnerable following a stroke. The Court found that key evidence, such as the Deceased’s medical and legal records had not yet been produced, and instead of ordering full security for costs, directed the Respondent to pay $5,000.00 toward obtaining those records so the Court could properly assess the merits of the Respondent’s challenge before determining next steps.

In the cost’s decision arising from Duregon v Mrklas, 2025 ABKB 458, the Court ordered the Defendant, acting on behalf of her Mother, to receive a lumpsum costs award of $60,000.00, plus disbursements, after the Applicants unsuccessfully sought to remove the Defendant as their Mother’s agent. The Court found the Applicants advanced serious, but unsubstantiated, allegations of elder abuse, failed to present supporting evidence, and pursued unnecessary litigation that depleted their Mother’s resources. While full indemnity was not awarded, the Court held that enhanced costs were appropriate due to the Applicants’ misconduct, the baseless nature of their claims, and the importance to protect the mother’s future care.

Counsel for the Applicant in a matter involving a dispute between two (2) sisters over their deceased Mother’s finances, challenging the Respondent’s conduct while acting as their Mother’s attorney, and later as personal representative of their Mother’s Estate. The Court found the Respondent failed to maintain proper accounts, made substantial unjustified expenditures, including more than $800,000.00 toward a house constructed on her own property, failed to account for over $500,000.00 (USD) from international assets, and was unable to establish the validity of a claimed $506,000.00 gift. The Court declined to pass the Respondent’s accounts, ordered repayment of over $1 million (combined CAD and USD) to the Estate, and removed the Respondent as personal representative, finding her actions imprudent, incomplete, and lacking in transparency.

Counsel for the Defendant. The Court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ Application seeking to remove their sister, the Defendant, as agent for their Mother. The Court found no evidence supporting the Applicants’ allegations that the Defendant caused their Mother harm, mismanaged her care, or improperly restricted family access. Instead, the evidence showed the Defendant consistently acted in accordance with their mother’s wishes, best interests, medical needs, and statutory duties. By contrast, the Applicants’ own conduct was identified as the primary source of their mother’s stress and disruption. The Court also refused the Applicants’ requests for unrestricted visitation, a new capacity assessment, and the appointment of independent counsel, concluding none were justified. The Applicants’ Application was dismissed in full.

Counsel for the Applicant in the cost’s decision arising from an Application to Pass Accounts as an Attorney. The Court ordered that the Applicant, acting as attorney for his late mother, was entitled to a partial indemnity costs award after successfully obtaining approval of his accounts despite prolonged opposition from his brother, the Respondent. The Court found that although the Respondent initially had reasonable grounds to seek additional disclosure, his continued resistance became unjustified once all outstanding information had been provided. While full indemnity was declined, the Court held that an enhanced award was appropriate given the Respondent’s unreasonable continuation of the dispute, directing him to pay $35,000.00 from his share of the Estate, with the remaining portion of the Applicant’s costs to be borne proportionally by the Estate.

Counsel for the Applicants on a matter seeking summary judgment to determine whether their Mother had the legal capacity to execute new Enduring Power of Attorney and Personal Directive documents in 2021, replacing earlier documents that had named the Respondent. The Court found summary judgment appropriate given the extensive evidentiary record and concluded the Applicants’ Mother clearly understood the nature and effect of the 2021 documents when she signed them. The lawyers who advised and witnessed the execution of the 2021 documents provided strong evidence of her stable, consistent instructions, and her rational reasons for appointing her sons, in place of the Respondent. The Court therefore held she had capacity, dismissed the Respondent’s validity challenge, and declared the 2021 documents valid and in full force.

Counsel for the Plaintiff, acting as her Mother’s attorney, on a matter concerning whether her Mother had the mental capacity to transfer her condominium into a joint tenancy with her longterm partner, the Defendant. Medical evidence supported the Plaintiff’s position the Plaintiff’s Mother lacked the necessary understanding of the nature and effect of the transfer, and additional circumstances presented by the Plaintiff reinforced that her Mother did not intend to gift the property to the Defendant. Although the Defendant relied on the solicitor’s contemporaneous impression it appeared the Plaintiff’s Mother was capable at the time of signing, the Court found the broader evidentiary record more persuasive and concluded the Plaintiff’s Mother lacked capacity to execute the transfer.

Counsel for the Respondent in a British Columbia Supreme Court matter involving an interprovincial adult guardianship dispute involving the parties incapacitated Mother. The Applicant sought to be appointed Committee for her Mother, who has advanced dementia, after relocating her to British Columbia; however, the Honourable Justice D. B. Nixon of the Alberta Court of King’s Bench had already appointed the Respondent as the Adult’s guardian and trustee under the Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act, S.A. 2008, c. A-4.2. Although the British Columbia Supreme Court confirmed it technically had jurisdiction, it held that relitigating the same issues would risk inconsistent results, undermine interprovincial comity, and duplicate matters already fully adjudicated in Alberta. The Court therefore stayed the Applicant’s petition, upheld the Respondent’s Alberta appointment, and noted any future decisions involving the Adult’s British Columbia property or care may still require British Columbia Court oversight, with all actions needing to prioritize the Adult’s best interests.