Dylan James MacLeod Crosby

A motor vehicle accident occurred on April 25, 2015, on Scenic Road in Renfrew County involving two vehicles traveling in opposite directions, resulting in serious injury to a passenger.

Damages were resolved prior to trial.

The sole issue at trial was whether the driver of the oncoming vehicle (Prince) bore any liability for the accident.

The defendant driver (Vandenheuvel) admitted to crossing the centre line.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish any liability against Prince, dismissing the action against him.

The court found that Prince was driving in his own lane at a reasonable speed and took appropriate evasive action upon discovering the oncoming vehicle.

This is a costs endorsement following a trial management conference and a motion by the applicant to adjourn the trial.

The adjournment was necessitated by the respondent's failure to comply with financial disclosure obligations, which the court emphasized as essential for fair and efficient family law proceedings.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs, and the respondent failed to provide any responding submissions.

The court awarded the applicant fixed costs of $1500 plus HST, payable forthwith, finding the amount reasonable given the time spent and counsel's hourly rate.

The applicant, a grandmother, sought a temporary order for access to her 5-year-old granddaughter.

The parents and other family members opposed the motion, citing concerns about the applicant's disrespect for parental decisions, promotion of religious views, and attempts to facilitate contact with an estranged aunt.

The court, applying the principles from *Chapman v. Chapman*, found that the parents were attentive, capable, and loving, and had not shown an inability to act in the child's best interests.

The court determined that the parents' decision to limit access was not arbitrary or unreasonable, despite the potential impact on the grandmother-granddaughter relationship.

The motion for temporary access was dismissed.

The court heard urgent applications and a cross-application for the appointment of a guardian for personal care and property for an incapacitated individual.

The primary applicant sought guardianship to challenge a doctor's life support plan at the Consent and Capacity Board, while the cross-applicant (spouse) intended to consent to the plan if appointed.

The court dismissed both applications for guardianship of personal care, finding that the need for decisions could be met by a less restrictive alternative, specifically by allowing the Consent and Capacity Board to determine the appropriate substitute decision-maker.

The court emphasized that the Board is the expert body for such life-and-death decisions.

Applications for guardianship of property were adjourned.

The primary applicant was ordered to pay partial indemnity costs to the spouse and a statutory fee to the Public Guardian and Trustee, partly due to the inappropriate conduct of counsel and the lack of admissible evidence.