Harjot Dosanjh

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order that her sister, the respondent, undergo a capacity assessment.

The underlying application involved a family dispute over the ownership of a residential property and concerns that the respondent, who has lifelong cognitive limitations, was vulnerable to undue influence by another sibling.

Applying the factors from Abrams v. Abrams, the court found reasonable grounds to believe the respondent was incapable and that an assessment was necessary to determine if she required a litigation guardian and a guardian of property.

The motion was granted, and the respondent was ordered to submit to a capacity assessment.

The defendant R.B. & R. Cartage Inc. ("RB&R") brought a motion to dismiss the action for delay and for the plaintiffs' failure to comply with a 2018 court order.

The action arose from an oil spill in 2004.

The court found that the plaintiffs were not in breach of the order to set the action down for trial, as a trial record had already been filed.

While the plaintiffs failed to serve expert reports or bring a productions motion, these defaults did not warrant dismissal.

Applying the test for dismissal for delay under Rule 24.01, the court determined that the delay was not intentional and that the plaintiffs rebutted the presumption of prejudice, as relevant medical evidence was available and liability had been admitted.

The motion to dismiss was denied, and the plaintiffs were directed to file an amended trial record to proceed to trial.

The Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services (Society) brought a motion for summary judgment to terminate an interim supervision order, withdraw their protection application, and dismiss the parents' Answers and Plans of Care.

The respondent mother and maternal grandmother consented, but the respondent father opposed, seeking access and custody for the paternal grandmother.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding no genuine issue for trial, emphasizing the children's best interests and their strong, consistent views to remain with their mother and not re-establish a relationship with their father.

The court found the children could be adequately protected without further Society intervention, particularly through a Voluntary Service Agreement with the mother.

This decision addresses motions for leave to intervene on an appeal from a summary judgment in a child protection case.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) and Renatta Austin, a lawyer who previously represented the appellant E.K.B. when she was a special party, sought leave to intervene.

The appeal raised significant issues regarding the role of special parties, their representatives, counsel's duties, procedural fairness, and Charter values.

The court found that these issues had a significant public interest element and that both proposed intervenors had an interest in the subject matter and could be adversely affected by the judgment.

Leave to intervene was granted to both the PGT and Ms. Austin, with terms restricting their intervention to specific issues related to their roles and conduct.