Marshall Swadron

The applicant, as Estate Trustee, sought a declaration that a Henson trust (the Jasmine Trust) created by the respondent lawyer for the benefit of one of the estate beneficiaries was void.

The lawyer had prepared the trust documents naming the Estate as settlor and his own professional corporation as trustee, and transferred estate property to it without the applicant's knowledge or intention.

The court found the trust void and of no force and effect due to a lack of certainty of intention, certainty of objects, and the professional corporation's lack of capacity to act as a trustee.

The court ordered the trust assets, including a condominium, to be conveyed back to the Estate and awarded full indemnity costs against the respondents due to the lawyer's egregious conduct.

The plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against two physicians following the death of her father.

The plaintiff, acting as her father's substitute decision-maker, had requested that he be treated as 'full code'.

However, the physicians determined that the patient was actively dying and that CPR would almost certainly not benefit him and would only cause harm.

They wrote a 'do not resuscitate' order without the plaintiff's prior consent.

The plaintiff claimed damages under the Family Law Act and for nervous shock.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the physicians met the standard of care, that writing a DNR order is not a 'treatment' requiring consent under the Health Care Consent Act, and that the physicians did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff that would conflict with their paramount duty to their patient.

Following the dismissal of a constitutional challenge to amendments to the Mental Health Act enacted through Brian's Law, the unsuccessful public interest applicant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court considered whether this was one of the rare and exceptional cases where costs should be awarded to an unsuccessful constitutional litigant.

Applying the discretionary principles governing costs under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and jurisprudence on public interest litigation, the court emphasized factors including the importance of the issues, the novelty of the constitutional challenge, the applicant’s limited resources, and the quality of the litigation.

The court also considered that interim funding might have been granted had it been requested.

Weighing all factors, the court concluded that the circumstances justified a partial costs award.

Applicants challenged the constitutionality of amendments to Ontario’s Mental Health Act introduced by Brian’s Law, including expanded civil commitment criteria (Box B) and the community treatment order regime.

They alleged the provisions violated ss. 7, 9, 10, 12, and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by permitting involuntary psychiatric assessment, detention, and community-based treatment for persons not posing a danger to themselves or others.

The court held that the legislation pursued a dual purpose of public safety and improved treatment for individuals with serious mental illness, and that the impugned provisions were neither overbroad, arbitrary, vague, nor grossly disproportionate.

Procedural safeguards, individualized clinical assessments, and consent mechanisms supported the statutory scheme’s constitutionality.

The Charter challenge was dismissed.