Liza Saad

The applicant successfully brought an application to remove the respondent as co-attorney for property for their mother.

The applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the respondent's conduct did not warrant substantial indemnity costs.

The court fixed the applicant's total reasonable costs at $20,000, ordering the respondent to pay $12,000 on a partial indemnity basis, with the remaining $8,000 to be paid from the mother's assets to fully indemnify the applicant.

This motion addresses the interim management of an incapable person's (Lionel Bascus) property and personal care, pending a full application challenging the validity of recently executed powers of attorney (POAs) and a property transfer.

The applicant, Mr. Bascus's daughter, sought directions for his care and production of records, alleging the respondent, Mr. Bascus's sister, was not acting in his best interests.

The court found the respondent was not adhering to statutory principles for substitute decision-makers, particularly regarding consultation and advocating for appropriate long-term care.

The court ordered directions for personal care, mandating consultation between the parties and access to medical information for the applicant.

It also ordered limited production of medical and solicitor records relevant to the POAs and property transfers, but denied access to financial and estate planning records.

The respondent's request to unfreeze bank accounts was denied as it was not brought by motion.

The applicant sought to remove his brother, the respondent, as co-attorney for property for their 97-year-old incapable mother.

The court found the respondent neglected his fiduciary duties by prioritizing his personal interests, including a distrust of the banking system and a desire for early inheritance distribution, over the mother's immediate care needs, which resulted in her funds being frozen for two years.

Applying the two-part test for terminating a power of attorney, the court found strong evidence of misconduct and neglect, concluding that the respondent was not acting in the incapable person's best interests.

The respondent was removed as co-attorney, and the applicant was ordered to pass his accounts of the attorneyship.

The moving party, Glenn Bogue, brought three panel review motions before the Court of Appeal for Ontario, seeking review of single judge orders.

Two motions related to his appeal of a Law Society of Ontario license suspension, and the third concerned litigation over his mother's property.

The court dismissed all motions as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.02, finding that the moving party repeatedly failed to advance his appeals and misused the panel review procedure.

Additionally, the court revoked his existing fee waivers pursuant to section 4.10 of the Administration of Justice Act.

The applicant, Kristy Rae Wheeler, sought costs following her successful motion to remove Allen Wilford and A. Wilford Professional Corporation as counsel for James Bruce MacAulay due to a conflict of interest, and to appoint s. 3 counsel for Mr. MacAulay.

The court found that Mr. Wilford's decision to defend the motion, despite a clear conflict, caused unnecessary costs.

The court awarded Ms. Wheeler partial indemnity costs, with a portion payable personally by Mr. Wilford and the remainder by Mr. MacAulay, as the motion also benefited Mr. MacAulay.

The self-represented litigant, Glenn Bogue, a suspended lawyer, filed multiple procedural panel review motions in the Court of Appeal concerning his appeal from a Law Society of Ontario suspension and a separate power of attorney litigation.

The court found these motions to be an improper use of the panel review procedure under s. 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act, as they diverted judicial resources from the merits of the appeals and constituted an "endless cycle of appeals within an appeal" on procedural issues.

The judge issued directions to the Registrar to initiate a Rule 2.1.02 process to dismiss these unperfected procedural motions, review Mr. Bogue's existing fee waivers under s. 4.10 of the Administration of Justice Act, and temporarily restrict further filings from him until the panel review matters are resolved.

The applicant brought a motion to remove the respondent's lawyer of record due to a conflict of interest, arguing the lawyer would be a material witness regarding disputed powers of attorney and real estate transactions.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to transfer the venue of the application.

The court dismissed the venue transfer motion for failing to comply with procedural rules.

The court granted the motion to remove the lawyer, finding that his involvement in the underlying transactions made him a necessary witness, creating a real conflict between his duty to the client and his duty to the court.

The court also directed the appointment of section 3 counsel for the respondent given the allegations regarding his capacity.

The applicant, as estate trustee, sought the court's advice and direction on three issues: the beneficial ownership and exigibility of a residential property (Concession Road Property), the legal validity of an insurance policy trust for the deceased's children, and leave to assign the estate into bankruptcy.

The court found that the Concession Road Property was beneficially owned by the deceased's ex-wife and was not exigible for estate creditors.

It also determined that the purported insurance policy trust was not legally binding due to precatory language and lack of certainty of subject matter.

Finally, the court denied leave for the estate to be assigned into bankruptcy, finding the applicant had not sufficiently proven the estate's insolvency.

The applicant, Mary Susan McKee, sought a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee with a Will for the estate of John Andrew McKee.

The respondent, Jennifer Vlasiu, objected, claiming a financial interest due to alleged fraud by the deceased regarding a property sale and seeking damages.

The court dismissed the respondent's objection, finding that her claims were not properly brought in a probate proceeding and that she lacked the necessary financial interest under Rule 75.03 as a creditor.

The court also found the respondent's conduct during the litigation to be reprehensible, scandalous, and outrageous, warranting an award of full indemnity costs to the applicant.

The Applicant, Glenn Bogue, acting as co-Attorney for Property for his incapable mother, brought an application seeking various relief, including directions on sale proceeds and transfer to an Indigenous Tribunal.

The Respondent, Colin Bogue, brought a motion to dismiss the Applicant's application on the grounds that the Applicant, being self-represented while acting in a representative capacity, violated Rule 15.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court granted the Respondent's motion, dismissing the Applicant's application, and rejected all of the Applicant's arguments, including those related to Indigenous sovereignty, the authority of self-proclaimed Indigenous tribunals, and the Crown's duty to consult, finding them without legal foundation.