J. Johnson

Costs decision following applications under the Substitute Decisions Act concerning the care and property of an elderly mother.

The litigation involved two groups of siblings disputing issues including compensation for caregiving.

Most issues settled before the hearing, leaving only a compensation issue which was decided in the earlier merits decision.

The court determined responsibility for legal costs, including those of court-appointed counsel under s. 3 of the Substitute Decisions Act.

The court ordered that certain preparation and hearing costs of s. 3 counsel and one group of siblings be paid by the unsuccessful parties, while other costs were borne by each party individually or paid from the incapable person's property.

Costs decision following applications under the Substitute Decisions Act concerning the care and property of an elderly mother.

The litigation involved two groups of siblings disputing issues including compensation for caregiving.

Most issues settled before the hearing, leaving only a compensation issue which was decided in the earlier merits decision.

The court determined responsibility for legal costs, including those of court-appointed counsel under s. 3 of the Substitute Decisions Act.

The court ordered that certain preparation and hearing costs of s. 3 counsel and one group of siblings be paid by the unsuccessful parties, while other costs were borne by each party individually or paid from the incapable person's property.

Two competing applications were brought by siblings regarding the guardianship and care of their 88-year-old mother, who suffers from Alzheimer's dementia.

The court appointed the daughter, who had been living with and caring for the mother, as guardian of personal care, and a trust company as guardian of property.

The primary dispute concerned the daughter's claim for $133,000 in compensation for past caregiving and $53,620 annually going forward.

The court awarded a lump sum of $25,000 for past care and $500 per month for future care management, emphasizing the mother's best interests and the equitable recognition of the daughter's contributions.

Following a successful application to declare a municipal by-law invalid, the applicant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of an offer to settle, and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The respondent argued each party should bear its own costs due to the public interest nature of the case.

The court awarded costs to the applicant, finding the public interest exception did not apply.

However, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs under Rule 49 because the applicant's offer contained terms beyond the scope of the litigation.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs at $74,006.60, adjusting the claimed rates to 60% of substantial indemnity rates.

The applicant sought to quash a municipal by-law imposing a two‑kilometre setback for industrial wind turbines from any “property” as defined in the by-law.

The court held that the definition of “property,” which included property lines, vacant land, structures, and inhabitants “of all species,” rendered the by-law unintelligible and incapable of consistent interpretation.

Because the measuring point for the setback requirement was unclear, developers could not determine where turbines could legally be located.

The by-law was therefore invalid for vagueness and uncertainty.

The court further observed that, even if valid, the by-law could become inoperative where it conflicted with provincial renewable energy legislation and regulations.