Katherine Eden Ballweg

The Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee brought a motion to be appointed as the guardian of property and personal care for an incapable adult, seeking to remove the adult's sister from the role.

The court found that the sister had failed to act in the incapable adult's best interests by removing her from a successful group home placement, failing to secure appropriate alternative residential care, leaving her to languish in a hospital mental health ward, and failing to pass her accounts.

The motion was granted, the sister was removed as guardian, and the Public Guardian and Trustee was appointed in her place.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) applied for guardianship of the property of Rodney Beals, a 55-year-old man with schizophrenia and developmental delay, after $2 million in lottery winnings were dissipated by family members acting as his attorneys for property.

The court found that Rodney was incapable of managing his property at the time of the lottery win, that his family members owed and breached fiduciary duties, and that the PGT should be appointed as guardian of property.

The court ordered the termination of existing powers of attorney, the appointment of the PGT, and costs against the family members.

The applicant, Shantee Grant, sought orders appointing her as guardian of property and guardian of the person for her grandmother, Dorothy May Robinson, who suffers from advanced Alzheimer's dementia and schizophrenia.

The court found Mrs. Robinson incapable of managing her property and personal care.

It was determined that Mrs. Robinson's previously appointed Attorney for Property had neglected his duties, and her sister, acting as substitute decision-maker for personal care, made decisions not in Mrs. Robinson's best interests.

The court found no less restrictive alternative courses of action.

Consequently, the applicant was appointed as guardian for both property and personal care, and the existing Power of Attorney for Property was terminated.

Costs were awarded to the applicant and the Public Guardian and Trustee, payable from Mrs. Robinson's estate.

F.L. appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision that upheld a Certificate of Incapacity, finding him incapable of managing his property.

The appeal raised issues of procedural fairness due to the joinder of the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) and alleged errors in law regarding the onus of proof and the application of the incapacity test.

The court dismissed the appeal, distinguishing the procedural fairness arguments from a prior case (P.P. v. Oliver) and affirming that the Board correctly applied the legal tests for incapacity, including the appreciation component, and did not improperly shift the burden of proof.

The applicant sought to be appointed as guardian of property and person for her 80-year-old grandmother, who was suspected of having dementia.

The application could not be heard on its merits due to late filing of materials and a lack of sufficient information regarding the respondent's assets.

The court adjourned the hearing, suspended the existing Power of Attorney, and appointed the Public Guardian and Trustee as temporary guardian of property to investigate the respondent's financial affairs.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) applied for guardianship of property for Russell DeForest, an incapable 20-year-old receiving ODSP benefits.

While all parties agreed Russell was incapable, his mother, Ms. Kindred-DeForest, opposed the application, asserting she was managing his funds.

The PGT argued guardianship was necessary because Ms. Kindred-DeForest had not used accumulated funds for Russell's current benefit and had failed to access other available funding.

The court granted the PGT's application, finding it necessary to ensure Russell could access his funds for a decent quality of life.

Daniel Otim Ochan, a 20-year-old with severe disabilities, was the subject of conflicting guardianship applications.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) sought guardianship of his person and property, proposing a full-time residential placement.

Daniel's parents, Joseph and Christine Ochan, filed a cross-application seeking to be appointed joint guardians, allowing Daniel to remain at home.

Daniel, through his counsel, expressed a strong wish to stay with his parents.

The court, considering the criteria under the Substitute Decisions Act, including Daniel's wishes and the closeness of the relationship, found that Daniel's best interests aligned with his preference for his parents to be guardians.

Despite past care concerns, the parents demonstrated recent improvements.

The court appointed Joseph and Christine Ochan as joint guardians of Daniel's person and property for a limited 12-month period, allowing for future review.

The plaintiff brought an urgent motion for injunctive relief to prevent the defendant, who is incapable of instructing counsel and whose financial matters are managed by her sons as powers of attorney, from dissipating her assets and becoming unable to satisfy a potential judgment for failing to close a real estate purchase.

The court found a real concern regarding the dissipation of assets and granted the injunction, ordering the net sale proceeds of the defendant's properties to be paid into court.

The court also appointed the Public Guardian and Trustee as litigation guardian for the defendant due to a potential conflict of interest with her sons.

The Ministry of Labour charged Thomson Metals and Disposal GP Inc. with three offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a workplace accident on June 4, 2014, involving a Caterpillar 325B excavator.

The operator's cab became separated from the machine, injuring the worker.

The charges alleged: (1) failure to ensure the equipment was equipped with a seat belt; (2) failure to ensure the operator cabin was securely fastened to the chassis; and (3) failure to take reasonable precautions to ensure bolts and washers met manufacturer's specifications.

After a four-day trial, the court dismissed all three charges, finding that the Crown failed to prove the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court determined that there was insufficient evidence that the excavator was originally equipped with a seat belt, and that the bolts and washers were consistent with manufacturer's specifications at the time of purchase.

The applicant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside an order of a motions judge in a judicial review proceeding arising from an employment dispute with Tim Hortons Inc. The applicant argued that his wife should be added as a party, that the record of proceedings was incomplete, and that the respondents' facta should be struck.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error by the motions judge.

The court confirmed that the applicant's wife was not a proper party to the employment litigation, the record of proceedings was complete, and there was no basis to strike the facta or find a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant brought a motion for procedural relief in his application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

He sought to have his wife represent him or be added as a party, production of his opening submissions to the Board, production of 750 pages of payroll records, and to strike the respondents' facta.

The court dismissed the motion in its entirety, finding no legal basis for spousal representation, noting the Board record was complete, and holding that disagreement with a factum is not grounds to strike it.

Costs of $3,500 were awarded to the respondent employer.

The Crown charged Magna Seating Inc. with two occupational health and safety violations arising from a worker being struck by a falling automotive seat at workstation 1630 on assembly line #1.

The first charge alleged failure to ensure material was transported, placed or stored so it would not tip, collapse or fall, contrary to section 45(b) of Ontario Regulation 851/90.

The second charge alleged failure to ensure a machine was shielded or guarded so that material being processed would not endanger worker safety, contrary to section 26 of Ontario Regulation 851/90.

The court found that while the Crown proved the actus reus of the first charge, the defendant successfully established the due diligence defence on a balance of probabilities.

The court dismissed both charges, finding that the defendant had taken all reasonable care in the circumstances to prevent the accident, particularly given the low probability of recurrence, minimal injury potential, and the unforeseeable combination of factors that led to the incident.

The appellant, Rassaun Steel & Mfg.

Co. Ltd., appealed its conviction under section 25(2)(h) of the Occupational Health & Safety Act for failing to ensure that an overhead duct system was adequately supported while it was being demolished or dismantled.

During equipment removal work at a foundry, a large section of ductwork fell onto a worker, causing serious injuries.

The trial court convicted the appellant, but the appellate court found that the conviction was based on findings unsupported by evidence, including that the ductwork was being dismantled or demolished, that the accident was foreseeable, and that lack of training contributed to the incident.

The appeal was allowed and an acquittal was entered.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his application for review of a refusal to issue an Order to Pay for termination pay.

The Board had refused to extend the 30-day time limit for filing the application under s. 116(5) of the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of natural justice and concluding that the Board's decision and subsequent reconsideration decisions were reasonable.

The Crown sought leave to file a Notice of Cross-Appeal challenging a conviction under subsection 25(2)(h) of the Occupational Health & Safety Act, filed approximately 18 days beyond the limitation period.

The respondent had appealed the conviction within the allowable time.

The court applied the three-factor test from R. v. Menear to determine whether to grant the extension of time.

The Crown failed to demonstrate a bona fide intention to appeal within the appeal period and provided no reasonable explanation for the delay.

While the proposed appeal had some merit regarding the interpretation of regulatory terms, the court found that granting leave would not be in the interests of justice, particularly given that the Crown's decision to appeal appeared reactive to the respondent's appeal rather than based on independent concerns about the trial decision.