Efe Maris Jesuorobo

In an appeal from a guardianship order, family members challenged the application judge’s appointment of the incapable person’s wife and adult daughter as guardians of property and personal care.

The appellants argued that the judge mishandled the evidence, ignored material arguments, engaged in uneven scrutiny, and made improper procedural rulings.

The Court of Appeal held that the arguments merely sought a reweighing of the record, which is not the appellate role, and found no reversible error.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

In a high-conflict parenting dispute, the court removed the respondent's counsel of record due to a pattern of non-attendance and non-compliance with court orders.

The court also addressed its jurisdiction to compel the attendance of a Children's Aid Society worker.

Given the verified risk of emotional harm to the children and the parties' failure to meet their statutory duties, the court ordered the primary Society worker to attend the next appearance with their records to ensure the court had complete information to determine the children's best interests.

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.