Louise Silverston

The applicant, the mother of a severely disabled adult, sought appointment as guardian of property for her son who suffered a traumatic brain injury from a fall in 2014 when he was not yet seven years old.

The court found the son incapable of managing property based on a capacity assessment and appointed the mother as guardian.

The court determined that no less restrictive alternative was feasible given the son's significant cognitive limitations and that the mother's lifelong devotion to his care and detailed management plan made her an appropriate guardian.

The applicant sought to set aside a full and final settlement of his statutory accident benefits claim, arguing he lacked the mental capacity to enter into the agreement due to a traumatic brain injury sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to rebut the statutory presumption of capacity.

The Tribunal preferred contemporaneous medical and vocational evidence showing the applicant had average cognitive abilities over a capacity assessment conducted three months after the settlement.

The settlement was deemed valid as it was not rescinded within the two-day cooling-off period.

The Applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident in November 2010 and sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment due to psychological issues.

The Insurer denied the claim, arguing the Applicant's mental health issues were due to a pre-existing bi-polar disorder and that she was malingering.

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant suffered a marked impairment in the area of adaptation and that the accident materially contributed to her current state of mental health.

The Arbitrator preferred the evidence of the Applicant's experts and noted the Insurer's aggressive tactics in summonsing witnesses.

The Arbitrator concluded the Applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of the accident.

An appeal concerning the validity of a continuing power of attorney for property executed by an elderly woman in favour of one of her twin sons.

The appellant challenged the validity of the power of attorney on grounds of undue influence and suspicious circumstances, arguing that the respondent son had coerced the grantor into executing the document by restricting her access to funds needed for basic living expenses.

The motion judge upheld the validity of the power of attorney, finding no evidence of undue influence or suspicious circumstances.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the transaction was rational and explicable by the parties' relationship, and that the motion judge correctly applied the law.

The moving party, Shu He Huang, sought leave to appeal an order from Justice Todd L. Archibald that appointed the Public Guardian and Trustee as her litigation guardian, following a finding that she was a person under a disability due to mental incapacity.

The court denied leave to appeal, finding that the moving party failed to satisfy either branch of the strict two-part test for leave under Rule 62.02(4).

Specifically, there were no conflicting decisions on a matter of principle, and the proposed appeal did not involve matters of general public importance beyond the immediate parties' interests.

Furthermore, the court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's original order, addressing and dismissing each of the moving party's six grounds of appeal, which included challenges to the medical proof of incapacity, the order for capacity assessment, the allocation of assessment costs, the admissibility of the assessment report, the fairness of the assessment conditions, and the basis for appointing the Public Guardian and Trustee.

This judgment concerns a motion to appoint a litigation guardian for the plaintiff, Ms. Huang, in a complex personal injury action that originated from a 2000 motor vehicle accident.

The court considered medical assessments and Ms. Huang's demonstrated inability to understand legal proceedings, settlement offers, and to effectively instruct counsel or represent herself.

Despite Ms. Huang's opposition, the court found her to be a person under disability, mentally incapable of representing herself in the litigation due to a Major Depressive Disorder.

Consequently, the motion was granted, and the Public Guardian and Trustee was appointed as her litigation guardian.