Dr. Sara Mitchell

The applicant son brought an urgent motion to suspend the 2024 powers of attorney appointing the respondent daughter as the attorney for property and personal care for their incapable mother.

The applicant alleged elder abuse and neglect by the respondent.

The court found the applicant's evidence of misconduct unreliable and often contradicted by medical and functional assessments.

Applying the test for terminating a power of attorney, the court held the applicant failed to show strong and compelling evidence of misconduct or neglect.

The motion was dismissed on an interim interim basis, the 2024 powers of attorney remained in force, and the mother was permitted to return to the respondent's care.

The respondent was awarded substantial indemnity costs of $45,000.

During a jury trial for a personal injury action arising from a motorcycle collision, the defendant brought a threshold motion under s. 267.5 of the Insurance Act.

The defendant sought a declaration that the plaintiff's claims for healthcare expenses and non-pecuniary losses were barred.

The court evaluated medical and lay evidence regarding the plaintiff's mild traumatic brain injury and post-concussion syndrome.

The court found that while the plaintiff could still work with accommodations, her impairments significantly disrupted her activities of daily living and social life.

The motion was dismissed, as the plaintiff established she sustained a permanent, serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function.

The applicant challenged the validity of her mother's 2016 Will and an inter vivos transfer of the mother's home to the respondent sister, alleging lack of capacity and undue influence.

The mother had a history of cognitive decline and was highly dependent on the respondent, who isolated her from the applicant.

The court found that the mother lacked testamentary capacity at the time the documents were executed and was subjected to undue influence by the respondent.

The 2016 Will and the property transfer were set aside, and the mother's prior 2007 Will was reinstated.

The plaintiffs brought a negligence claim against the school board, principal, and vice-principal for injuries sustained by the student plaintiff during a schoolyard assault by other students.

The plaintiffs alleged that the school failed to properly supervise the students and investigate prior incidents of bullying, which culminated in an assault that caused permanent tinnitus.

The court found that while the school breached the standard of care in failing to investigate a prior incident and losing an accident report, these breaches did not cause the assault, which was a sudden and unexpected event during a hidden game of tackle football.

The claim was dismissed as the plaintiffs failed to establish cause in fact.

The applicant brought a motion for a declaration that his mother was incapable of managing property and personal care, and to validate 2015 Powers of Attorney while invalidating 2017 revocations and 2019 Powers of Attorney.

The respondent sister opposed, arguing the mother lacked capacity in 2015 and was unduly influenced by the applicant.

Relying on a court-ordered capacity assessment by a neurologist, the court found the mother had capacity in 2015 but lacked capacity by 2017.

The court dismissed the respondent's allegations of undue influence, validated the 2015 Powers of Attorney, and declared the 2017 revocations and 2019 Powers of Attorney void ab initio.

The applicant sought post-104-week Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal considered whether the applicant suffered a complete inability to engage in any employment or self-employment for which he was reasonably suited by education, training, or experience.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical and vocational assessments, which found the applicant capable of working in alternative occupations such as a retail salesclerk, over the applicant's tort-focused expert reports.

The application was dismissed, as the applicant failed to meet the post-104-week IRB test, and no interest was payable.