Paul Osier

The applicants sought termination of powers of attorney granted by their elderly mother to other family members and sought appointment of one applicant as guardian of property and person under the Substitute Decisions Act.

The court found the attorneys had failed to properly account for the sale proceeds of the incapable person's home and had breached their fiduciary duties in managing her finances.

The court also found the incapable person unable to manage her property or personal care based on capacity assessments.

Although concerned about the proposed guardian’s intentions and family financial conduct, the court terminated the existing powers of attorney and appointed the applicant as guardian subject to strict conditions, including restrictions on moving the incapable person and mandatory financial accounting.

The plaintiff brought an action against the Hamilton Police Services Board (HPS) for damages arising from the seizure of his vehicles and car parts by the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).

The plaintiff alleged that the HPS was vicariously liable as a 'partner' of the OPP because an HPS detective assisted in examining the seized vehicles.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding no evidence of a partnership or joint investigation between the two police forces.

The court concluded that the OPP had exclusive control over the seizure and disposition of the property, and the HPS detective acted solely as an examiner.

The appellants appealed a contempt order and the penalty imposed by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even excluding the alleged hearsay evidence, there was ample evidence to support the findings of contempt.

The court also upheld the penalty, characterizing it as moderate in the circumstances, and awarded costs to the respondent.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their request to stay a contempt proceeding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the material before the motion judge did not support the request, particularly as there was no evidence that an application for an extension of time for leave to appeal the underlying interlocutory injunction order could succeed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding an equalization payment.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge failed to follow the steps provided in the Family Law Act and made unclear findings of fact regarding a constructive trust, pension valuation, and a property gift.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment was set aside, and a new trial was directed.

The appellant, a police officer, sought judicial review to declare his resignation invalid, alleging it was obtained through lengthy interrogation and threats to prosecute.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had a true and continuing intent to resign up to the time it was accepted by the Commissioner.

Consequently, there was no exercise of a statutory power of decision that would give rise to judicial review.