A. Mason

In an application challenging the validity of an elderly father's powers of attorney, the respondent brought a motion to dismiss parts of the application.

A preliminary issue arose regarding whether the applicant could cross-examine the deponents of the respondent's affidavits before the motion was heard.

The respondent argued that the applicant must first meet the minimum evidentiary threshold test established for will challenges.

The court held that the minimum evidentiary threshold test under Rule 75 does not apply to power of attorney disputes under the Substitute Decisions Act, and permitted the cross-examination as of right under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The moving party sought to enforce an unsigned settlement agreement arising from a dispute over the validity of competing wills.

The moving party argued that an agreement on the essential terms had been reached through correspondence between counsel.

The responding parties opposed the motion, arguing that counteroffers were still being made and no final agreement was reached.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that there was no meeting of the minds on all essential terms and that the responding parties never agreed to the terms in the draft minutes of settlement.

The Commissioner of the OPP applied for certiorari to quash a warrant of committal that ordered an offender to serve an intermittent sentence at the Pikangikum OPP detachment.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the application, finding that the sentencing judge erred in law on the face of the record.

The court held that under the Ministry of Correctional Services Act, sentences of imprisonment must be served in a correctional institution, and under the Criminal Code, intermittent sentences require appropriate accommodation, which a temporary police lock-up facility does not provide.