A version of this article was originally published by The Lawyer’s Daily (www.thelawyersdaily.ca), part of LexisNexis Canada Inc.

Hockey fans of a certain age will remember Dan Maloney as a player for, and later the head coach of, the Toronto Maple Leafs in the 1970s and 80s.  He passed away recently at the age of only 68, and there are many unanswered questions about whether the hits he took (and dished out) during hockey’s toughest era contributed to the decline in his health and, ultimately, his death. 

Complicating Dan Maloney’s final years was the fact that his family was not united about how to manage his health and personal affairs.  As reported by Dan Robson in his excellent article at The Athletic (subscription required – and strongly recommended), Maloney’s family were still arguing about whether he had legal capacity to make his own health care decisions less than two (2) weeks before he died. 

When Maloney died, the disputes within his family continued.  His daughter, Shelley, challenged his Will in Superior Court and the decision, released last year, is a great example of how a civil court case is all about the intersection between the legal and the personal.

Dan named a niece, rather than any of his children, as his estate trustee but, in all other respects, his Will was unremarkable.  His Will provided that his estate was to be divided equally amongst his three (3) children: the only exception being that, in addition to her one-third (1/3) share, Shelley would also get an oak china cabinet.

Shelley represented herself at court, and it is clear from reading the case that her objection her father’s Will was more a cathartic or therapeutic exercise than anything to do with the legal validity of his Will.  To begin with, even if she had been successful in having her father’s Will invalidated, that simply would have meant that the estate would have been divided equally amongst Dan’s three (3) children—which is already what the Will said.  The only change would have been that Shelley would not have received the oak china cabinet that Dan wanted her to have. 

What is more, much of the relief that Shelley asked for was relief which the Court could not even award.  In addition to asking for the Will to be invalidated, she also asked the Court to, among other things:

• Revoke the licence to practise medicine of the estate trustee (who, in addition to being Dan’s niece, happened to be a doctor);
• Revoke the licence to practise law of the lawyer who drafted Dan’s Will;
• Order the Ontario Provincial Police and the Chief Coroner to conduct an investigation into the death of Dan Maloney; and
• Order paternity tests to be conducted on her brothers.

Even though she was self-represented, I suspect that Shelley knew full well that her challenge of her dad’s Will was not going to succeed.  It seems that the motivation behind her proceeding was personal and emotional, rather than legal or financial.  While there may be a perception that the law is dull and sterile, this case is a reminder that the courts are often the place where the law collides with the very real lives of the people it impacts. 

This case also provides a good example of how to respond to a litigant who is using the court process for some sort of moral, therapeutic, or emotional purpose, and not for any actual legal remedy.  The judge who decided the case, Justice Christie, was not at all dismissive of Shelley’s challenge to the validity of her father’s Will.  Instead of dismissing the case on the spot, she took the time to write a judgment which was detailed and thorough and gave a fulsome analysis of the applicable law.  While her exasperation could not help but at times seep through, she nevertheless delivered a judgment that, overall, treated the legal case with the solemnity and gravitas which we rightly expect from the courts.  A court case which had no possible chance of success from a legal perspective, and which probably took less than two (2) hours of court time to argue, still resulted in a twelve-page legal decision. 

It is sometimes said that judges should “write for the loser”, and that’s what Justice Christie did here.  She certainly wasn’t writing for the appeal court (there was an exactly zero percent chance of this ruling being overturned on appeal) and she wasn’t writing for the benefit of the estate trustee’s lawyers (who already know the law).  This ruling was for the benefit of the person who—unsuccessfully—challenged the Will.  While Shelley would undoubtedly have been disappointed in the result, she can hopefully take some comfort that her concerns were given due consideration by a Judge of the Superior Court, and at least she was heard.  And there is every chance that, at the end of the day, that is all she really wanted.