Law360 Canada ( January 22, 2026, 9:36 AM EST) -- Appeal by Jim from a judge’s interpretation of clause 3.3 of a trust deed establishing an alter ego trust created by his father, Vines. Vines executed the trust deed in September 2021 and died in August 2022. The trust deed provided for the division of the trust fund into two separate trusts upon Vines’ death, one for Jim and one for Vines’ spouse, Simon. In May 2022, Vines exercised a power of appointment under clause 6.1 of the trust deed, naming Simon as the replacement trustee. Following Vines’ death, Simon petitioned the Supreme Court for directions regarding the administration of the alter ego trust. The judge held that Simon was the trustee of both new trusts and retained the discretionary power to make payments from income and capital to Jim and himself. Jim argued that the trust deed’s intent was for each beneficiary to be trustee of their own trust, with discretion to make payments to himself from the income and capital. He also contended that the judge erred by considering post-settlement conduct, specifically, Vines’ May 2022 appointment of Simon as trustee, in interpreting the September 2021 trust deed. Simon maintained that the judge did not err in either respect. The issues were whether the judge erred in interpreting clause 3.3 of the trust deed as requiring in the circumstances that Simon would serve as the trustee of the new trusts and would have absolute discretion to make payments to Jim and himself from the income and capital of each of the new trusts, and in considering post-settlement conduct in construing the trust deed. Jim proposed that the capital T in Trustee in the second sentence be viewed as a drafting error....