Mallory Laurie

The applicant sought court advice and direction regarding the mental capacity of his wife, the respondent, Anna Naccarato, to manage her property and personal care.

The application also sought the release of a Continuing Power of Attorney for Property (CPOAP) and a Power of Attorney for Personal Care (POAPC) to the applicant, and his appointment as a partial, time-limited guardian of the respondent's person.

The court found the respondent incapable of managing her property and personal care (specifically health care, shelter, and safety) based on anecdotal evidence from family members and section 3 counsel, without requiring a formal capacity assessment.

The court ordered the release of the CPOAP to the applicant and appointed him as partial, time-limited guardian of the respondent's person with custodial and apprehension powers, but declined to order the release of the POAPC due to lack of evidence regarding its release conditions.

The applicant estate trustee sought an order vacating a Notice of Objection filed by the respondent regarding the deceased's 2019 Will.

The respondent alleged lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, and suspicious circumstances, relying on evidence of the deceased's health issues, uncharacteristic behaviour, and increased medication dosage.

The court applied the minimal evidentiary threshold test from Neuberger v. York and found that the respondent's evidence amounted to mere speculation and did not call into question the validity of the 2019 Will.

The application was granted, the Notice of Objection was vacated, and a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee was ordered to be issued.

The accused, charged with impaired driving causing death, brought a Charter s. 8 application to exclude blood alcohol evidence obtained via a search warrant.

The accused argued the Information to Obtain (ITO) contained misleading statements and that the police unlawfully seized his blood by placing a seal on a vial at the hospital before obtaining the warrant.

The court conducted a sub-facial review of the ITO, excised minor errors, and found the amplified record still provided reasonable grounds to issue the warrant.

The court also held, following appellate precedent, that placing a seal on a blood vial taken for medical purposes and left in the hospital's control did not constitute an unreasonable seizure.

The application was dismissed.