Kimberly Ann Fernando Cura

This is a costs endorsement following a successful application for interim guardianship of property for an incapable adult.

The applicant, Brenda Myers, sought full indemnity costs, while the responding party, Tereasa Muscedere (the incapable adult's mother), opposed the costs award, claiming impecuniosity and excessive costs.

The court found Tereasa's opposition to the guardianship application unreasonable and ordered her to pay partial indemnity costs to Brenda Myers and s. 3 counsel for the incapable adult.

The balance of Brenda Myers' and s. 3 counsel's costs, and the Public Guardian and Trustee's full indemnity costs, were ordered to be paid from the incapable adult's property, with a portion of the PGT's costs adjourned to the passing of accounts.

This appeal arose from a dispute among siblings concerning the care and property of their nonagenarian mother.

The appellant challenged the application judge's decision, which declared the mother incapable, validated existing powers of attorney, and ordered the appellant to account for funds held on a resulting trust.

The appellant alleged procedural unfairness, including failure to consider his materials, denial of an adjournment, and improper dismissal of his counter-application, and sought leave to appeal the costs order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error or procedural unfairness, and denied leave to appeal costs, affirming the application judge's discretion.

The defendant, Peel Condominium Corporation No. 507, brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, Precision Tree Care Ltd., in a construction lien action.

The plaintiff claimed for tree trimming services, alleging verbal authorization for work significantly exceeding the initial estimate.

The defendant argued the plaintiff lacked sufficient assets in Ontario and failed to provide adequate financial disclosure to prove impecuniosity.

The court found the plaintiff to be impecunious based on the evidence provided, including records of creditor enforcement and lack of income.

Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff's case was not "plainly devoid of merit," a lower threshold for impecunious plaintiffs.

Consequently, the motion for security for costs was dismissed.