Ioulia Vinogradova

This is a costs endorsement following a successful application by Denise Pettipas to remove Deborah Johnston as power of attorney for their mother, Eileen Bessie Pettipas, and to appoint Denise as guardian.

Denise sought full indemnity costs.

The court applied principles from the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as specific considerations for estate and Substitute Decisions Act proceedings.

The court found Deborah's conduct less than ideal, including failure to disclose and placing Eileen in financial jeopardy, but no personal benefit.

The court ordered substantial indemnity costs of $25,341.50, payable by both Eileen and Deborah, with Eileen or her estate entitled to full reimbursement from Deborah, emphasizing public policy to protect vulnerable persons and not discourage well-meaning relatives.

This motion for directions concerned the validity of a new power of attorney and will executed by an 88-year-old mother with cognitive impairment, which appointed her daughter Deborah Johnston as power of attorney, replacing her other daughter Denise Pettipas.

The applicant, Denise Pettipas, sought broad disclosure of financial and medical records and a waiver of solicitor-client privilege.

The court found the applicant's counsel's approach aggressive and some requests, particularly the privilege waiver, to be overreaching.

While acknowledging the respondent's difficulties with communication, the court ordered the respondent to provide a full accounting of the mother's financial affairs and medical reports from the date of the new power of attorney, and imposed a non-dissipation order.

The court denied the broad privilege waiver and orders against the mother's lawyer.

The applicant's requested costs of over $15,000 were deemed excessive and reduced to $1,500.

Vendors appealed a summary judgment decision ordering specific performance of a residential real estate purchase agreement.

The vendors had refused to close the transaction and claimed they never agreed to sell the property.

The motion judge found the vendors not credible based on inconsistent testimony and evidence from their own real estate agent.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding no error in the motion judge's credibility findings or her discretionary award of specific performance.

The court also rejected the vendors' arguments regarding delay, uniqueness of the property, and procedural objections.

The respondents' cross-appeal for additional damages was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of quantifiable losses.