B. Wiseman

The applicant sought the appointment of Section 3 counsel under the Substitute Decisions Act for her mother, whose capacity was in issue amid a family dispute over powers of attorney.

The respondent opposed the appointment, relying on a geriatric psychiatrist's report concluding the mother had severe dementia, lacked capacity to instruct counsel, and would likely suffer significant emotional distress if forced to deal with an unfamiliar lawyer.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while Section 3 counsel can sometimes be appointed even when a person cannot provide instructions, in this specific case it would not be in the mother's best interests, would be ineffective, and would not assist in resolving the underlying litigation.

The parties engaged in a dispute over the distribution of the deceased's scrapbooks, which the deceased had directed to be shared among his family.

The applicant and respondent sought substantial indemnity costs for the litigation.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, finding that the parties' offers to settle did not warrant substantial indemnity.

The court ordered the estate trustee to personally pay a portion of the applicant's costs due to her inappropriate conduct, including attempting to withhold the scrapbooks to force an agreement on another estate issue and failing to respond to communications.

Following an order declaring the respondent incapable of managing property and appointing a guardian, the parties sought costs.

The court determined that the applicant, whose application initiated the process, and the section 3 counsel appointed for the incapable person, were entitled to their costs.

The court ordered that the costs of the applicant on a partial indemnity basis and the section 3 counsel on a full indemnity basis be paid out of the incapable person's estate.

Following a jury verdict in a defamation and intrusion upon seclusion action, the plaintiffs brought a motion seeking a Sanderson order requiring the unsuccessful defendant to pay the costs previously awarded to two successful co-defendants who had been dismissed on summary judgment.

The court considered the governing test from Moore (Litigation Guardian of) v. Wienecke and found the threshold requirement was not met because the plaintiffs had no evidentiary basis to join the successful defendants when the action was commenced.

The court further held that even if the threshold were met, a Sanderson order would not be appropriate given the risk that the unsuccessful defendant lacked the means to satisfy the costs award.

However, relying on prior findings that the unsuccessful defendant had ensnared the successful defendants in the litigation, the court granted a Bullock order permitting the plaintiffs to recover from that defendant the costs previously awarded to the successful defendants.

Costs of the motion were awarded against the plaintiffs.