Nicole Robert

The court considered a motion to remove the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) as litigation guardian for Stephen Duffy, following a new capacity assessment that found him capable of managing property.

The court found the evidence insufficient to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that Stephen was no longer a party under disability within the meaning of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice, and the PGT remains as litigation guardian.

This application under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, concerned the guardianship of property for an incapable individual.

The court previously declared the individual incapable of personal care and appointed the applicant as guardian of the person.

This ruling addressed the guardianship of property, finding the individual incapable of managing property.

The court appointed the applicant and the individual's sister as joint guardians of property, approving their management plan.

The court dismissed a request for single-signature reimbursement for small expenses and ordered the guardians to post a one-time security bond of $1,440,000, to be paid from the incapable person's assets, rejecting the applicant's argument against security based on future inheritance.

The court also addressed the Public Guardian and Trustee's costs and clarified issues regarding the estate of the incapable person's late husband.

Costs for the applicant and Section 3 counsel were adjourned for further submissions.

The plaintiff, Rama Hashemi, represented by a litigation guardian, sought a declaration of capacity to manage his financial affairs and court approval of a settlement.

The court reviewed capacity assessments from three designated assessors, which collectively affirmed Mr. Hashemi's capacity.

Consequently, the court declared Mr. Hashemi capable of managing his financial affairs.

However, because he was no longer considered a 'person under disability' under the Rules of Civil Procedure, court approval of the settlement was deemed unnecessary and inappropriate, as he was capable of making such decisions himself.

The applicant spouse brought a motion seeking disclosure of medical records, a mental capacity assessment, and other orders under the Substitute Decisions Act relating to the respondent spouse’s alleged incapacity to manage his affairs.

The respondents opposed and cross‑applied for dismissal of claims against adult children and for partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The court found that two professional assessments and counsel’s representations established that the respondent spouse was mentally competent to instruct counsel and manage his affairs.

The applicant’s motion was dismissed, the claims against the adult children were struck, and the court ordered partition and sale of the matrimonial home as no prejudice to Family Law Act rights was demonstrated.