Elaine F. Rufiange

Following competing applications under the Substitute Decisions Act to appoint guardians for an adult daughter with significant developmental limitations, the successful applicant sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $34,000.

The court considered the discretionary principles governing costs under the Courts of Justice Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure, including settlement offers and litigation conduct.

Although the applicant had succeeded in the guardianship proceeding, the court found his longstanding failure to provide child support for the daughter constituted relevant conduct justifying denial of costs.

The court declined to rely on the applicant’s settlement offer and also refused to order costs against non-parties.

In the circumstances, the court ordered that there be no order as to costs.

Cross-applications were brought by separated parents under the Substitute Decisions Act seeking appointment as guardian of the property and personal care of their adult daughter who had a moderate developmental disability and epilepsy and was incapable of managing property or personal care.

The court reviewed expert psychological evidence, service-provider testimony, and the daughter’s declining life skills and limited participation in developmental programs while living primarily with the mother.

Applying the statutory criteria for guardianship, the court concluded the father was better positioned to provide stimulation, structure, and access to support services necessary to maintain or improve the incapable person’s functioning.

The court therefore appointed the father as sole guardian of property and personal care, with detailed conditions governing finances, services, residence, and the mother’s ongoing contact.

A dispute between parents concerning guardianship of their adult daughter who was incapable of managing her property and personal care under the Substitute Decisions Act.

The court confirmed the daughter’s continued incapacity and terminated the parents’ joint guardianship due to ongoing conflict.

The Public Guardian and Trustee was appointed as full guardian of property and temporary guardian of the person.

The court imposed detailed interim residence and communication arrangements between the parents and emphasized the urgent need for placement in an appropriate group home for adults with developmental disabilities in Eastern Ontario.

The applicant sought orders under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 appointing it as guardian of the respondent’s property following a capacity assessment concluding the respondent was incapable of managing property due to mental illness and delusional beliefs.

The applicant also requested an order compelling the respondent to undergo an Occupational Health Assessment to enable access to employment disability benefits, along with enforcement provisions including possible police assistance.

The court accepted the capacity assessment and appointed the applicant as guardian of property.

The court further ordered the respondent to attend an Occupational Health Assessment and directed disclosure of health and financial records necessary for the guardianship.

However, the court declined to authorize police apprehension or hospital examination at this stage, finding that the assessment should occur at the respondent’s residence and that enforcement measures could be sought later if necessary.