Kayla Gordon

The applicant, the wife of Carl Joseph Bennett, sought a declaration that Powers of Attorney signed by Carl in September 2023 were invalid due to lack of capacity and undue influence, or alternatively, that the respondent son had breached his fiduciary duties as attorney.

The court found that Carl lacked capacity to execute the POAs and that the respondent had breached multiple fiduciary duties under the Substitute Decisions Act.

The court terminated the POAs and appointed the applicant as Carl's Guardian of Property and Person.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs and provide full accounting of Carl's finances.

This appeal concerned parental responsibility and decision-making for twin children, where one child was alienated from the mother and the other from the father.

The appellant mother sought to overturn a lower court order that maintained the de facto living arrangements (daughter with mother, son with father) and to reinstate previous shared parenting orders or gain sole parental responsibility for the son.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's decision that the existing arrangements were in the children's best interests, given the history of failed therapeutic interventions and the lack of a concrete plan for reunification therapy.

The court also confirmed that a material change in circumstances was not required for the motion judge's order, as per a prior consent order.

The moving party brought a motion to set aside the Registrar's dismissal of her appeal for failure to perfect on time.

The delay was primarily caused by the moving party's initial appeal counsel, who failed to address fee waivers and properly serve documents.

The Court of Appeal applied the Paulsson factors and found that it was in the interests of justice to set aside the dismissal, as the moving party should not suffer the consequences of her lawyer's oversight, the appeal materials were essentially ready, and there was no prejudice to the children's best interests.

The motion was granted and the appeal was permitted to proceed.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support following the breakdown of a 20-year marriage.

The parties enjoyed a high standard of living during the marriage, with the respondent earning a significantly higher income than the applicant.

The court found that the applicant was entitled to interim support to maintain a standard of living commensurate with that enjoyed prior to separation.

The respondent was ordered to pay $12,500 per month in interim spousal support, retroactive to January 1, 2019.