Guy Broderick Macnamara Hunter

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion seeking the immediate sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home due to imminent bank foreclosure and to strike the applicant father's pleadings for non-compliance with a disclosure order.

The father opposed the sale, asserting the children's best interests and his efforts to manage the property.

The court granted the mother's request for the immediate sale of the matrimonial home, dispensing with the father's consent and granting the mother sole authority over the sale process.

The motion to strike pleadings was adjourned.

The court found the property unaffordable for the father, the sale inevitable, and no legitimate family law claims prejudiced by the sale, also noting the father's uncooperative and bizarre conduct.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to approve a settlement for a minor plaintiff's personal injury claim.

The court dismissed the motion, citing two primary concerns: the minor's litigation guardian (his father) was also acting as counsel for the plaintiffs, violating Rules 7.05(3) and 15.01, which require a litigation guardian to be represented by a lawyer.

Additionally, the litigation guardian was also an FLA claimant, creating a potential conflict of interest as he had a personal stake in the settlement allocation, which was not adequately explained.

The court emphasized the necessity of independent legal representation and a dispassionate assessment to protect the minor's best interests.

This decision addresses the fixing of costs for an urgent motion and resolves two outstanding issues regarding the final order.

The court determined the order was final and preferred the respondent's proposed police enforcement clause.

For costs, the applicant sought substantial indemnity ($10,500), while the respondent proposed $950 or $3,500.

The court found the respondent acted unreasonably by resorting to self-help but not in bad faith.

It deemed the applicant's claimed costs excessive for a straightforward motion and awarded $5,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable within thirty days.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for the return of her two young children from the respondent father, who had unilaterally retained them beyond an agreed-upon access period, citing COVID-19 concerns and an alleged agreement.

The court found the matter urgent, emphasizing the importance of enforcing existing court orders and discouraging unilateral "self-help" remedies.

It determined there was no agreement for the children to remain with the father and that returning them to the applicant's primary residence was in their best interests, given her reasonable pandemic precautions.

The applicant sought disclosure for claims of constructive trust, unjust enrichment, tracing, and spousal support.

The respondent moved for summary judgment to dismiss these claims based on limitation periods and to strike or stay the application due to unpaid costs.

The court dismissed the applicant's disclosure motion, granted the respondent's summary judgment motion, dismissing the property claims due to expired limitation periods and laches, and stayed the application until the applicant complies with all outstanding costs orders.

The applicants, the maternal grandmother and maternal uncle, sought access to the respondent's two children following the death of their mother.

The respondent opposed the application and sought a restraining order, citing the children's trauma and the therapist's recommendation against contact with the maternal family.

After a case conference where the court expressed concerns about the merits of the application, the applicants withdrew their application and consented to the restraining order.

The only remaining issue was costs.

The court awarded costs to the respondent, finding that the applicants had prematurely commenced the court proceeding without waiting for therapeutic reports and had proceeded unreasonably despite clear indications from the respondent's counsel about the children's emotional state and the legal test regarding parental autonomy in grandparent access cases.

Following earlier guardianship proceedings concerning an incapable adult under the Substitute Decisions Act, a sibling who had acted as de facto caregiver sought reimbursement for expenses incurred while caring for the incapable person for approximately seventeen months.

The court considered evidence from the prior guardianship applications and affidavit materials to determine whether reimbursement was appropriate and whether offsets applied.

The court found that the estate trustees had asked the caregiver to assume responsibility and had agreed to reimburse reasonable expenses incurred for the incapable person’s care.

After accounting for partial payments already made, the court concluded that the caregiver had incurred expenses exceeding the amount claimed.

Judgment was granted against the deceased parent’s estate for $17,000 as an estate administration expense.

Competing applications were brought by siblings seeking appointment as guardian of property and personal care for an adult with developmental disability under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992.

The court found the incapable person required full guardianship due to inability to understand or appreciate decisions concerning personal care and property.

Although the incapable person expressed a preference to remain living with one sibling, the court held her wishes carried limited weight given her incapacity to evaluate long‑term interests.

Applying the overarching best interests test, the court preferred the applicant’s proposal due to her long history of caregiving, parenting experience, and more stable family and financial circumstances.

The applicant was appointed guardian and directed to file an amended management plan.