Dr. Lynn Lightfoot

The appellant sought to set aside a settlement agreement for statutory accident benefits reached in 2016, arguing he lacked the capacity to enter into the contract.

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

On appeal and judicial review, the Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no errors of law in the capacity analysis and concluding the decision was reasonable.

The court also rejected arguments that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by excluding a retrospective expert capacity report.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found he was barred from proceeding with his accident benefits dispute because a 2016 settlement agreement was valid and not vitiated by incapacity.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law and breached procedural fairness by excluding a retrospective capacity assessment, improperly weighing evidence of his emotional dysregulation, and demonstrating a reasonable apprehension of bias against his counsel's law firm.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or procedural fairness, and concluding that the applicant was improperly attempting to re-litigate the weighing of evidence.

The applicants challenged the validity of their late father's 2015 Will, alleging lack of testamentary capacity, suspicious circumstances, and undue influence by his common-law spouse, the respondent.

The testator executed the new Will shortly after a terminal cancer diagnosis, leaving his half-interest in the jointly owned home to the respondent, while his children still received his RRSPs and vehicle.

The court declined to convert the application to a trial, finding the documentary record sufficient.

The court held that the applicants failed to rebut the presumption of testamentary capacity, as the circumstances surrounding the Will's execution were not suspicious and there was no evidence of undue influence.

The application was dismissed and the 2015 Will was declared valid.

A commercial real estate deal involving three properties failed to close.

The plaintiff, NJS Capital Management Inc., brought a summary judgment motion for breach of contract, while the defendants counterclaimed, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, seeking rectification, or rescission based on unconscionability, arguing the deals were cross-conditional and a package.

The court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, finding the defendants breached the contracts and dismissing the counterclaims, concluding there was no oral agreement for cross-conditionality or misrepresentation, and the contracts were not unconscionable.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently entered into a settlement agreement for statutory accident benefits.

Years later, his litigation guardian challenged the settlement, arguing either that the Applicant's father forged his signature or that the Applicant lacked capacity to contract.

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant likely signed the documents himself.

However, relying on extensive medical records showing the Applicant was involuntarily hospitalized for psychosis hours after signing, and an uncontradicted capacity assessment, the Arbitrator concluded the Applicant lacked capacity to contract both when signing and during the statutory cooling-off period.

The settlement was therefore declared not binding.

The Public Guardian and Trustee, acting as litigation guardian for a plaintiff under a disability, brought a motion under Rule 7.08 for court approval of a $65,000 settlement of his claims against police officers for alleged excessive use of force (Taser deployment).

The plaintiff's family opposed the settlement, arguing for higher damages.

The court reviewed the liability risks, including conflicting evidence on the number of Taser deployments and the application of s. 25(2) of the Criminal Code, as well as the medical evidence regarding damages.

The court concluded the settlement was fair, reasonable, and in the plaintiff's best interests, and approved the settlement along with $5,000 in costs to the PGT.

Motion by a litigation guardian seeking court approval of a proposed settlement under Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for a plaintiff found to be a party under disability.

The proposed settlement provided for an all‑inclusive payment of $45,000 relating to claims of assault, battery, wrongful arrest, detention, negligence, and alleged Charter breaches arising from a police incident involving multiple taser deployments.

The court considered a capacity assessment confirming the plaintiff lacked the ability to instruct counsel and therefore required representation by a litigation guardian.

The court held that the evidentiary record concerning liability, damages, and pre‑judgment interest was insufficient to determine whether the proposed settlement was reasonable or in the plaintiff’s best interests.

Approval of the settlement was refused.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT), acting as litigation guardian for a plaintiff under a disability, brought a motion under Rule 7.08 for court approval of a proposed $45,000 settlement of claims arising from an alleged police assault.

The plaintiff and his family opposed the settlement, arguing he was not under a disability and should proceed to trial.

Following a court-ordered capacity assessment, the court confirmed the plaintiff lacked capacity to instruct counsel and that the PGT had the authority to settle the action.

However, the court found the evidentiary record insufficient to meaningfully assess the reasonableness of the proposed settlement, particularly regarding general and special damages.

The court directed the PGT to provide further medical documentation and adjourned the approval determination.