J.S. Mangat

The plaintiff's counsel requested a further capacity assessment, alleging the appointed assessor conducted the interview in Hindi rather than Punjabi and exhibited bias.

The court dismissed the request, noting the concerns were only raised after the report found the plaintiff lacked capacity.

The court accepted the assessor's finding, declared the plaintiff incapable of instructing counsel, and appointed the Public Guardian and Trustee as litigation guardian pursuant to Rule 7.04.

The plaintiff's counsel failed to attend a scheduled video conference hearing, requesting a last-minute adjournment because a medical assessment report was not ready.

The court adjourned the matter, ordered the plaintiff's counsel to provide a written explanation for his absence and the delay in obtaining hospital records, and issued directions to the assessor to complete the report.

During a proceeding regarding whether payments made by the plaintiff were gifts or loans, concerns arose regarding the plaintiff's capacity to instruct counsel.

The court noted frailties in the plaintiff's evidence and suggestions of undue pressure from family members.

The court ordered a capacity assessment to determine whether a litigation guardian is required under Rule 7.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, with the assessment to be funded by the defendants.

A hearing regarding a capacity assessment was scheduled during a trial.

Plaintiff's counsel failed to appear.

The court adjourned the hearing to a later date and noted that the parties had reached an agreement on the identity and funding of a capacity assessor if one is ordered.

Following a trial, the court raised the issue of whether the plaintiff was a party under disability requiring a litigation guardian.

The Public Guardian and Trustee took no position and stated it lacked authority to investigate.

The defendants indicated an intention to bring a motion for a capacity assessment, which the plaintiff opposed.

The court scheduled a voir dire hearing to determine its jurisdiction to order a capacity assessment, whether one should be ordered, and how it would be funded.

The plaintiff, a 98-year-old woman, sued her daughters and son-in-law for the recovery of money alleged to have been loaned, which the defendants claimed was a gift.

During the trial, the court raised concerns about the plaintiff's capacity to instruct counsel and maintain the action, despite her counsel's assurances.

The court issued an interim order, declining to make a final determination on the merits until the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) has an opportunity to investigate the plaintiff's capacity and provide submissions on appropriate next steps.