E. Morris

W.S., a 20-year-old with significant mental health issues, appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision that found her incapable of managing property.

The Board's finding was based on her inability to appreciate the foreseeable consequences of acquiring alcohol, leading to self-harm.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the Board committed an error of law by characterizing the decision to acquire alcohol as a decision in property management without other evidence of property management issues, and that the physician's assertion of W.S. "repeatedly running out of money" was uncorroborated.

The court emphasized that capacity to manage property must relate to financial matters, not solely to control behavior unrelated to property.

The Board's finding of incapacity was set aside.

The plaintiffs sought leave to extend the time for service of their statement of claim almost two years after the deadline.

The action alleged breach of a 1993 agreement regarding timber harvesting buffer zones.

The Crown argued the action was a nullity for failure to provide notice under s. 7 of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

The court found the plaintiffs' prior correspondence did not constitute proper notice to the Crown.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice caused by the delay in service.

The motion was dismissed and the action against both defendants was dismissed.

The Public Guardian and Trustee, acting as litigation guardian for an incapable beneficiary, brought an application to compel the estate trustee to pass the estate accounts.

The beneficiary had signed a release and received her share of the estate, but was assessed as incapable less than three months later.

The court applied section 2(4) of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, finding that the estate trustee failed to prove she did not have reasonable grounds to believe the beneficiary was incapable when the release was signed.

The application was granted and the estate trustee was ordered to pass the accounts.

A hog supplier sought an order terminating the 30‑day period for an insolvent company to file a proposal under s. 50.4(11) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act or, alternatively, the appointment of a receiver over the debtor’s inventory under s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The moving party argued the debtor acted in bad faith by accepting livestock deliveries shortly before filing a notice of intention to make a proposal and that creditors would be prejudiced because farmers would otherwise be unable to claim the statutory priority for agricultural suppliers under BIA s. 81.2.

The court held the evidence did not establish lack of good faith, inability to make a viable proposal, inability to obtain creditor approval, or material prejudice to creditors as a whole.

The court further held it would be inappropriate to appoint a receiver solely to trigger the statutory farmer priority scheme where Parliament had chosen not to extend that priority to NOI proceedings.