Josh Cohen

The case concerns whether an assessor appointed under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 must provide disclosure of materials collected and reviewed prior to a capacity assessment, and whether the assessor and the Consent and Capacity Board considered the correct factors relevant to the management of property.

The court held that there is no legal obligation for the assessor to provide such disclosure in advance, and that the Board did not err in its application of the legal test for capacity.

The appeal was dismissed.

This is a costs decision following a motion to vary supervised access.

The Applicant sought full recovery costs, arguing complete success and bad faith by the Respondent.

The Respondent argued mixed success and unreasonable conduct by the Applicant.

The court found the Applicant was not entirely successful, rejected the bad faith claim, and deemed the motion straightforward.

It also noted both parties' problematic conduct.

The court awarded the Applicant significantly reduced costs, considering proportionality, reasonableness, and the parties' conduct.

The applicant sought to set aside the deceased's last will on grounds of lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence, and to compel the respondent to pass accounts and be removed as estate trustee.

The court dismissed the application, finding no suspicious circumstances, testamentary capacity, or undue influence.

The court also declined to order a formal passing of accounts or the removal of the estate trustee, concluding that the applicant failed to meet the evidentiary thresholds for his claims.

The Respondent brought a motion to vary an interim order for supervised parenting time, seeking unsupervised access to the child.

The Applicant opposed the motion.

The court reviewed the history, including the Respondent's prior absconding with the child and ongoing conflictual behavior during supervised visits, and the Applicant's hypervigilance.

The court declined to vary the supervised access order, finding it was in the child's best interests to maintain stability and avoid parental conflict.

The court also requested the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer to assist in determining the child's best interests and managing parental conflict.