Edgar-Andre Montigny

The self-represented applicant brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against his siblings for allegedly failing to comply with a prior production order, and seeking extensive further productions of corporate records spanning 35 years related to family businesses.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding the issue was one of interpreting the scope of the prior order rather than deliberate defiance.

The court also dismissed the request for further productions, holding that the requests were disproportionate, overly broad, and largely irrelevant to the underlying application regarding their incapable mother's property.

The applicant, the wife of an incapacitated man, sought appointment as guardian of his person and property.

The respondents, the incapacitated man's siblings and mother, opposed the application and sought to have one of the siblings appointed as guardian instead.

The court found that the applicant and her daughter were in a closer relationship with the incapacitated person than his siblings, and that the sibling proposed as guardian had a conflict of interest regarding disputed property ownership.

The court appointed the applicant and her daughter as joint guardians.

Application to dismiss a Notice of Objection filed by the respondent against the issuance of a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee with a Will to the applicant.

The deceased executed a will in September 2022 naming the applicant as executor and trustee.

The respondent, the deceased's daughter, filed a vague Notice of Objection without supporting evidence.

The applicant brought an application for directions to dismiss the objection.

The respondent failed to deliver a Responding Record and did not appear at the hearing.

The court found that the applicant discharged her burden of proof regarding due execution, knowledge and approval, and testamentary capacity.

The respondent failed to meet the minimal evidentiary threshold required to challenge the will.

The Notice of Objection was dismissed, the Certificate was ordered to be issued, and costs were awarded to the applicant to be paid from the respondent's distributive share.

The court considered whether Ms. Dubuisson, previously found incapable of managing her property, could move to substitute her guardian under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992.

The court found that while she had standing to bring the motion, she could not do so without a litigation guardian due to her status as a person under disability.

The motion was dismissed, with the court emphasizing the importance of procedural protections for individuals found incapable and the statutory respect for autonomy.

The applicant son brought a motion within a guardianship application to determine his 91-year-old father's capacity to instruct counsel, and to enforce previous orders regarding financial disclosure and access visits.

The father, who suffers from aphasia, had been assessed by multiple capacity assessors.

The court found the father had capacity to instruct counsel regarding his personal care and residence, but lacked capacity to instruct on property matters due to his inability to understand a disputed $280,000 mortgage.

The court directed the Public Guardian and Trustee to arrange section 3 counsel for the father, ordered the respondent siblings to provide the long-overdue accounting, and enforced the applicant's access visits, awarding substantial indemnity costs against the respondent siblings for their reprehensible conduct in delaying the proceedings.

The applicant, an adult with a severe intellectual disability, alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the residential services provided by the respondent agency and the oversight by the respondent Ministry.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the allegations were essentially complaints about the quality of care and disagreements over the nature of support, which do not constitute Code-related discrimination.

The Tribunal also found no reasonable prospect of success against the Ministry for failing to intervene, as there is no Code-related obligation for the Ministry to oversee the agency's accommodation.

The application was dismissed.

In a family guardianship dispute concerning an adult daughter, the moving party sought interim guardianship or interim access pending determination of the full guardianship application.

The court held that the factual record was inadequate to draw conclusions about capacity and emphasized that any capacity issues required proper professional assessment.

Applying s. 55(2) of the Substitute Decisions Act, the court dismissed the interim guardianship request because alternatives had not been fully explored.

The court also dismissed interim access after receiving submissions from counsel appointed for the adult daughter, who reported clear instructions that she wished to remain with her father and aunt and did not wish to see her mother.

The appellants appealed an order of the motion judge regarding a real estate offer.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable or overriding error, agreeing that the offer presented did not meet the requirements of a prior court order because it was conditional and not at arm's length.

The appeal on the merits and the appeal as to costs were both dismissed.