A. Mayeski

The applicant daughter sought to be appointed as guardian of property and personal care for her mother, the respondent.

The respondent opposed the application but filed no responding evidence.

The court found the respondent incapable of managing her property and personal care due to declining mental health, delusions, and inability to manage finances or medical needs.

The court declined to order a capacity assessment, finding it would be overly intrusive given the respondent's likely refusal to cooperate.

The application was granted, and the daughter was appointed guardian subject to posting a $125,000 bond.

Following a motion to vary an order concerning their mother's care and estate, the parties made submissions on costs.

The court found that the moving parties (two of the siblings) engaged in unreasonable litigation conduct that unnecessarily lengthened and delayed the proceedings.

Costs were awarded to the Public Guardian and Trustee, Section 3 counsel, BMO Trust Company, and the responding siblings.

To sanction the moving parties' conduct while recognizing the estate's ability to pay, the court ordered the costs to be paid from the mother's estate, with 50% of those costs to be set off against the moving parties' future inheritance.

The moving parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

Section 3 counsel brought a motion to vary a previous order regarding the guardianship of an incapable person, after the appointed guardian of personal care (the incapable person's daughter) indicated she would seek outside employment and hire professional caregivers instead of providing full-time personal care herself without compensation, contrary to the guardianship plan she had filed.

The court found that the daughter's actions escalated the litigation and that she put her own interests ahead of her mother's.

However, because the mother was thriving under the daughter's full-time care, and the daughter threatened to cease providing care if not appointed guardian and compensated, the court varied its previous order to allow for the daughter's compensation.

To mitigate conflict of interest and ensure the mother's best interests, the court appointed the daughter and one of her brothers as joint guardians of personal care.

Section 3 counsel brought a motion to vary a previous order regarding the guardianship of an elderly mother, after the daughter appointed as guardian of personal care indicated she would seek outside employment and hire full-time professional caregivers unless compensated.

The court found that the daughter's actions escalated the litigation and were money-driven, but recognized that the mother was thriving under her daughter's full-time personal care.

To ensure the mother's best interests were met, the court varied the order to appoint the daughter and one of her brothers as joint guardians of personal care, and ordered that the daughter be compensated for her caregiving services.