Jennifer A. Treloar

In a family law proceeding, the respondent's lawyer brought a motion to be removed from the record and to appoint the Public Guardian and Trustee as the respondent's Litigation Guardian.

The respondent suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and repeatedly refused to take medication, communicate with his lawyer, or attend court.

Despite a recent hospital discharge and a doctor's letter suggesting he was capable while medicated, the court found the respondent incapable of instructing counsel over the course of the proceeding.

The court appointed the Public Guardian and Trustee as the respondent's Litigation Guardian.

The husband brought a motion under rule 59.06(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside a consent order resolving equalization issues on the basis of alleged fraud and misrepresentation in the wife's net family property disclosure.

The court reviewed multiple challenged items, including the valuation of the matrimonial home, a condominium interest, alleged debts, vehicle valuation, omitted bank accounts, and household contents.

The court held that the husband failed to establish fraud, intentional misrepresentation, or lack of disclosure sufficient to set aside the consent order and had not exercised due diligence prior to entering the agreement.

The court also declined to exercise its discretionary authority under rule 59.06 due to delay and the husband's own incomplete disclosure.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded against the husband due to unproven allegations of fraud.

The respondent brought a motion for a restraining order and an order requiring the applicant to vacate a residential property he owned, while the applicant brought a cross‑motion seeking interim spousal support based on an alleged common law relationship.

The parties disputed whether they had cohabited in a continuous common law relationship and whether the applicant had any possessory or constructive trust interest in the home.

The court found there was an arguable case that the parties were in a common law relationship but that significant factual disputes remained, including issues relating to income and property interests.

To preserve the status quo pending trial, the court allowed the applicant to remain in the home in lieu of interim spousal support and declined to grant a formal restraining order.

The matter was ordered to proceed to an expedited trial.