Jan Goddard

The applicant sought court advice and direction regarding the mental capacity of his wife, the respondent, Anna Naccarato, to manage her property and personal care.

The application also sought the release of a Continuing Power of Attorney for Property (CPOAP) and a Power of Attorney for Personal Care (POAPC) to the applicant, and his appointment as a partial, time-limited guardian of the respondent's person.

The court found the respondent incapable of managing her property and personal care (specifically health care, shelter, and safety) based on anecdotal evidence from family members and section 3 counsel, without requiring a formal capacity assessment.

The court ordered the release of the CPOAP to the applicant and appointed him as partial, time-limited guardian of the respondent's person with custodial and apprehension powers, but declined to order the release of the POAPC due to lack of evidence regarding its release conditions.

Miriam Stein, 90, has a feeding tube.

Her three daughters, Helen Brunswick, Frieda Oren, and Gloria Stein, were joint attorneys for personal care.

Gloria opposed the feeding tube, while Helen and Frieda supported it.

They entered into "Minutes of Settlement" for a geriatric assessment to guide decisions on the feeding tube.

When the tube needed replacement, they disagreed.

Gloria resigned as attorney for personal care, believing the Minutes would protect her position.

Helen and Frieda proceeded with the replacement.

Gloria subsequently sought to enforce the Minutes for a specific assessment.

The court found the Minutes were not a legally binding agreement, lacking offer, acceptance, consideration, and certainty of terms, and became moot upon Gloria's resignation.

The court dismissed Gloria's motion and application, and exempted Helen and Frieda from consulting Gloria on matters related to Miriam's feeding tube due to irreconcilable differences.

The applicant sought orders requiring the respondents, Srul Erlich and Tamara Erlich, to undergo capacity assessments and to prevent them from dissipating trust property or their cottage.

The court dismissed the application, finding no reasonable grounds to believe that either Srul or Tamara were incapable or that assessments were required, giving weight to existing medical opinions and the respondents' wishes.

The applicant estate trustee sought a declaration that the respondent breached a settlement agreement by failing to maintain and repair a property they co-owned as tenants-in-common.

The respondent had occupied the property but allowed it to fall into disrepair, resulting in a lower sale price.

The court found the respondent in breach of the agreement and awarded the estate $75,375 in damages, representing its 75% share of the estimated $100,500 loss in property value.

The court also ordered the balance of a contingency fund and the respondent's remaining sale proceeds to be applied against the damages.

In a guardianship application under the Substitute Decisions Act concerning the alleged incapacity of an elderly business owner, the applicant sought an order sealing the court file.

Corporate respondents involved in related automotive businesses also sought a confidentiality order allowing them to file documents with the court without disclosing them to certain co‑respondents, or alternatively an “eyes‑only” order limiting disclosure to counsel.

The court held that a sealing order was appropriate under s. 137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act given the sensitive medical, personal, and commercial information involved.

However, the requested confidentiality order preventing disclosure to opposing parties was rejected as contrary to fundamental principles of civil procedure and natural justice.

The court instead extended the deemed undertaking rule to protect confidential information while maintaining ordinary disclosure obligations between parties.