Inderdeep Toor

This appeal addressed the correct analytical approach to interpreting a consent judgment, an issue of first impression for the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The case involved estate litigation concerning the sale of a farm, where the parties had signed Minutes of Settlement and a Consent Judgment.

The application judge had interpreted the Consent Judgment using a dictionary definition, concluding the farm sale provision was not included and that the appellants had repudiated the Minutes of Settlement.

The Court of Appeal held that consent judgments should be interpreted using contractual principles, considering surrounding circumstances, but found the application judge's error immaterial as the Consent Judgment selectively incorporated terms from the Minutes of Settlement, excluding the farm sale.

The Court also upheld the finding that the respondents had accepted the appellants' repudiation of the Minutes of Settlement.

The appeal was dismissed.

Daniel Otim Ochan, a 20-year-old with severe disabilities, was the subject of conflicting guardianship applications.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) sought guardianship of his person and property, proposing a full-time residential placement.

Daniel's parents, Joseph and Christine Ochan, filed a cross-application seeking to be appointed joint guardians, allowing Daniel to remain at home.

Daniel, through his counsel, expressed a strong wish to stay with his parents.

The court, considering the criteria under the Substitute Decisions Act, including Daniel's wishes and the closeness of the relationship, found that Daniel's best interests aligned with his preference for his parents to be guardians.

Despite past care concerns, the parents demonstrated recent improvements.

The court appointed Joseph and Christine Ochan as joint guardians of Daniel's person and property for a limited 12-month period, allowing for future review.