Angelique Noella Moss

This application concerned the validity of powers of attorney (POAs) made by an 82-year-old respondent, Larry Alvin Marshall, and whether a guardian of his property and person should be appointed.

The applicants, Shawn Hollinger (Attorney for Personal Care) and MD Private Trust Company (Attorney for Property), sought to invalidate new POAs made in January 2023 that named Mr. Marshall's estranged sons, Thomas and Bryan Marshall, as attorneys.

The court found that Mr. Marshall lacked the requisite capacity to make the 2023 POAs due to significant cognitive impairment and vulnerability to undue influence.

Suspicious circumstances surrounding the preparation and execution of the 2023 POAs shifted the burden of proof to the grantees, which was not met.

Consequently, the 2023 POAs were declared invalid, and the 2022 POAs were affirmed as Mr. Marshall's last valid powers of attorney.

The applicants, acting as attorneys under 2022 powers of attorney, sought to invalidate 2023 powers of attorney granted to the respondents (the incapable person's sons) on the basis of incapacity.

At a case conference, the court considered interim arrangements for the incapable person's care and discharge from the hospital.

Finding a strong prima facie case that the 2023 powers of attorney were invalid, the court granted an interlocutory injunction prohibiting the respondents from acting under them, thereby leaving the applicants with exclusive authority to move the incapable person to a private rehabilitation facility pending the final hearing.

The applicant sought interim dependants' support of $45,000 under the Succession Law Reform Act, claiming she was the common law spouse of the deceased.

The respondents, the deceased's daughters and family, disputed the relationship, providing conflicting evidence that the deceased did not cohabit with the applicant.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that due to the conflicting affidavit evidence and lack of independent corroboration, the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case or special circumstances justifying interim funding.

This application concerned a dispute among the four children of an 89-year-old incapable mother, Shui Wah Wong, regarding who should be appointed as her guardians for personal care and property.

The applicants, Anna Kam Wong and Stella Kam Wong, sought appointment, while the respondents, Winnie Shuk Kum Yau and Samuel Lun Cheung Wong, also sought appointment.

The court considered the best interests of the incapable person, the fitness of the proposed guardians, and the factors under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992.

The court found that the respondents, Winnie and Samuel, had historically managed the mother's affairs and provided consistent care, and their plan prioritized the mother's interests.

The applicants' concerns about past financial dealings and visitation schedules were found to stem more from a desire for control and 'rights' rather than the mother's best interests.

The court dismissed the applicants' request and appointed Winnie Shuk Kum Yau and Samuel Lun Cheung Wong as joint guardians, also ordering the applicants to pay costs.