Earl Atnikov

The appellant, acting as substitute decision-maker for her incapable mother, appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision ordering her to consent to a palliative plan of care.

The Board had found that the mother's condition would continue to deteriorate and that the palliative plan was necessary to allow her transfer to a chronic care facility.

On appeal, fresh evidence demonstrated that the mother had stabilized on continuous ventilation and had already been transferred to the chronic care facility without adopting the palliative plan.

The Superior Court of Justice admitted the fresh evidence, found that the evidentiary foundation of the Board's decision had fundamentally shifted, and quashed the Board's decision as unreasonable.

The appellant, acting as substitute decision-maker for her husband, appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board regarding his treatment plan.

Before the appeal could be decided, the husband passed away.

The court applied the test for mootness from Borowski and determined that the appeal was moot because there was no longer a live controversy between the parties.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal, finding that the issues were highly fact-specific and raised no questions of public importance.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to compel disclosure following an earlier court order requiring the respondent to provide financial information relevant to determining income for support purposes.

The court found that the respondent had failed to comply with the portion of the order requiring confirmation from a bank regarding the existence of any additional business accounts.

The respondent was ordered to provide further documentation confirming whether any additional business accounts existed.

While the court found compliance with respect to disclosure about a car allowance, it ordered supporting documentation for expense account entries to allow proper assessment of their reasonableness.

The court also held that the applicant was entitled to adjourn the trial to properly evaluate the respondent’s financial means.

The applicant brought a motion to vary an interim spousal support order, arguing a material change in circumstances due to job loss and reliance on Employment Insurance.

The respondent opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to transfer ownership of a vehicle.

The court found a material change in circumstances and reduced the applicant's spousal support obligation from $1,500 to $640 per month.

The respondent's motion for summary judgment regarding the vehicle was dismissed as there were triable issues regarding contributions to the vehicle.

The applicant father brought an application for custody or access to his seven-year-old son, whom he had not seen in four years.

The father brought a motion to enforce an order for the Office of the Children's Lawyer to prepare a report, while the respondent mother brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the father's application.

The court found that the child had significant special needs, including ADHD and oppositional defiant disorder, requiring a parent with excellent self-regulation.

Given the father's history of criminal activity, substance abuse, and ADHD, and his failure to provide evidence of his capacity to meet the child's needs, the court granted the mother's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the father's motion.