3 total
The court permanently stayed an action and removed the plaintiff's lawyer due to an incurable conflict of interest and abuse of process.
The defendants brought a motion to dismiss or stay the plaintiff's action, alleging it was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and that the plaintiff's counsel was in an incurable conflict of interest.
The court found the action to be an abuse of process due to significant overlap with other proceedings and the plaintiff's counsel's prior representation of one of the defendants as estate trustee, which provided access to privileged information.
The court concluded that this conflict created incurable prejudice.
The action was permanently stayed, and the plaintiff's counsel was removed from the record and prohibited from acting in any proceeding related to the estate where the defendant is a party.
Costs were awarded to the moving parties.
The court upheld the Board's finding that the patient lacked capacity to consent to treatment.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board which found the appellant incapable of making treatment decisions regarding antipsychotic medications and a Community Treatment Plan.
The appellant challenged the Board's findings on three grounds: error in appreciating foreseeable consequences of treatment decisions, misapprehension of evidence, and error in finding likelihood of substantial mental deterioration without treatment.
The court upheld the Board's decision, finding that the appellant's inability to recognize the severe psychotic symptoms of her condition prevented her from appreciating the consequences of treatment or lack thereof.
The court also found no misapprehension of evidence and confirmed the Board's assessment of the likelihood of deterioration based on the Mental Health Act criteria, dismissing the appeal on all grounds.
Trust created by estate lawyer without trustee's knowledge declared void; full indemnity costs awarded.
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.