Andrew Childs

The moving party sought to reopen a Court of Appeal decision disposing of appeals concerning guardianship of an incapacitated person.

The moving party alleged that new information had been deliberately concealed, consisting of quarterly reports revealing a $43,000 payment to Section 3 Counsel for appeal work and a $442,000 transfer between accounts.

The moving party contended these payments evidenced an improper litigation agreement and breach of fiduciary duty.

The court dismissed the motion under Rule 2.1.02 as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, finding the information was not genuinely new and could not have affected the original decision.

This motion for directions arose during the passing of accounts for an incapable person.

The litigation guardian sought guidance on objections filed by the incapable person's children, Peter and Caroline, who attempted to re-litigate previous guardianship appointments and alleged misconduct.

The court found Peter's objections constituted an abuse of process, struck them, and denied him standing.

Caroline was granted standing but was restricted from re-litigating issues previously decided by final court orders.

The court also expressed concern regarding the property guardian's (BMO Trust Company) non-participation in the motion.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of a review motion and appeals in a family law matter involving guardianship and estate issues.

The court awarded costs to the successful party, Michael Childs, on a partial indemnity basis.

The costs were to be paid from the assets of the incapable person (Eileen Childs) through her guardian, BMO Trust Company, with the amounts to be offset against any inheritance received by the unsuccessful parties.