Lorna A. George

Following a guardianship decision appointing the applicant as guardian of the person and property of an incapable individual, the court addressed costs.

The applicant sought costs against one respondent who had opposed the application.

The respondent argued that costs should be paid from the incapable person's assets and that the applicant’s settlement offer should not affect the award.

The court held that the applicant was successful and entitled to costs because the respondent opposed the application, and that the settlement offer was not determinative.

Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity basis in the all‑inclusive amount of $10,000 payable by the respondent.

The applicant daughter sought appointment as guardian of property and personal care for an incapable elderly parent diagnosed with Alzheimer dementia.

The stepfather, who held existing continuing powers of attorney for property and personal care, opposed the application and argued guardianship was unnecessary.

The court considered the statutory framework under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 and whether the existing powers of attorney continued to serve the incapable person’s best interests.

Although no misconduct by the attorney was established, the evidence showed the applicant had long managed the incapable person’s medical and personal care decisions and was best positioned to continue doing so.

The court concluded that no less restrictive alternative was adequate and appointed the applicant guardian of both property and personal care.