Clarke L. Melville

The applicant son sought to be appointed sole Guardian of Property and Guardian of Personal Care for his 87-year-old mother, who suffers from advanced dementia.

He also sought to remove his brother as a joint attorney for property.

The respondent brother sought to be appointed Guardian of Personal Care.

The court found no strong and compelling evidence of misconduct or neglect to justify removing the respondent brother as an attorney for property.

The court appointed both brothers as joint guardians of personal care and directed that the mother's emergency care plan remain consistent with the choice previously made by her late husband.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief and a maintenance reserve, the court determined the issue of costs.

The defendants were entirely successful on the contentious issues and were awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court fixed the costs at $25,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable forthwith.

The plaintiffs, shareholders in an aircraft charter business, brought a motion for interim relief pending trial of their oppression action.

They sought an injunction restraining the defendants from leasing aircraft below market rates, an order establishing a maintenance reserve for a specific aircraft, and monthly production of financial and flight records.

The court dismissed the requests for injunctive relief and the maintenance reserve, finding the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured allowing the corporations to make business decisions pending trial.

On consent, the court ordered quarterly production of financial and flight records.

Following an appeal, the court received written costs submissions.

The appellant had made an assignment in bankruptcy.

Adopting the joint submissions of the respondent and the appellant's trustee in bankruptcy, the court ordered costs of $15,000 in favour of the respondent.

The appellant husband appealed judgments in a debt action and a matrimonial proceeding.

In the debt action, the trial judge found the husband jointly liable with his former wife for three loans advanced by her father.

In the matrimonial proceeding, the trial judge ordered spousal support, child support including section 7 expenses, and determined equalization amounts without discounting the wife's debts to her father.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual conclusions or assessment of credibility.

Following a trial concerning alleged loans made by a parent to his daughter and her spouse, the plaintiff succeeded against the co-defendant spouse for two of three loans.

The court had found the spouse jointly liable for the majority of the claimed debt.

On the subsequent costs ruling, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs after a Rule 49 offer to settle that produced a more favourable trial result.

While the court found the plaintiff largely successful and noted the defendant’s conduct had unnecessarily prolonged the trial, the claimed amounts were considered somewhat excessive.

The court fixed costs in the lump sum amount of $70,000 inclusive.

The husband brought a motion for an extension of time to serve and file notices of appeal in a matrimonial action and a related debt action.

The delay was initially only one day due to a counting error by his lawyer, but further delay occurred while seeking a stay and settling the trial order.

The Court of Appeal applied the five-factor test for extending time.

The court granted the extension for the debt action and the financial issues in the matrimonial action, finding no prejudice.

However, the court denied the extension for the custody and access issues, noting the children were thriving under the newly implemented schedule and the justice of the case did not warrant disrupting their stability.