Michael John Buccioni

The applicant daughter brought an application seeking a capacity assessment for her father, her appointment as his guardian of property and personal care, and the setting aside of a 2020 Power of Attorney in favour of her brother.

The respondent parents brought a cross-application seeking the return of their assets held jointly by the daughter and an accounting of her management of their finances.

The court dismissed the daughter's application, finding insufficient evidence to displace the father's presumption of capacity or to set aside the 2020 Power of Attorney, and noting her failure to file a guardianship plan.

The parents' application was granted in part, with the court ordering the daughter to return title to their properties, relinquish joint accounts, and provide an accounting from 2018 to 2020.

The court also ordered the brother to provide an annual accounting and directed the appointment of a third-party administrator to manage the sale of the parents' Canadian properties.

The applicant son brought a motion within a guardianship application to determine his 91-year-old father's capacity to instruct counsel, and to enforce previous orders regarding financial disclosure and access visits.

The father, who suffers from aphasia, had been assessed by multiple capacity assessors.

The court found the father had capacity to instruct counsel regarding his personal care and residence, but lacked capacity to instruct on property matters due to his inability to understand a disputed $280,000 mortgage.

The court directed the Public Guardian and Trustee to arrange section 3 counsel for the father, ordered the respondent siblings to provide the long-overdue accounting, and enforced the applicant's access visits, awarding substantial indemnity costs against the respondent siblings for their reprehensible conduct in delaying the proceedings.

The defendants brought Rule 21 motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' action.

The plaintiffs requested an adjournment of the defendants' motions until after their motion for leave to amend the statement of claim could be heard.

On consent, the court adjourned the defendants' motions to a later date.

The defendants brought separate motions to strike the plaintiffs' claim under Rule 21.

The plaintiffs requested an adjournment of one defendant's motion because they had a pending motion for leave to amend the statement of claim.

The court granted the adjournment, finding no prejudice to the defendants and noting that proceeding with a motion to strike while a motion to amend is pending would be inefficient.

Both motions to strike were adjourned to be heard together, with costs thrown away awarded to one defendant.

The defendants brought separate motions to strike the plaintiffs' action under Rule 21.

The plaintiffs requested an adjournment of the motions because they had a pending motion for leave to amend the statement of claim.

The court granted the adjournment, finding that it would be inefficient to proceed with the motions to strike before the motion to amend was decided.

Both motions were adjourned to be heard together, with costs thrown away awarded to one of the defendants.

The individual defendants, officers and directors of BMW Canada Inc., brought a motion to strike the Amended Statement of Claim against them, arguing it failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiffs alleged various torts including negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional interference with economic relations.

The court granted the motion, finding that the pleading failed to establish a basis for personal liability against the individual defendants, as their alleged actions were within their corporate capacity, and the elements for the pleaded torts were not properly established.

Leave to amend was granted, and costs were awarded to the individual defendants.

Following a Rule 21.01(1) motion to strike portions of a statement of claim alleging civil conspiracy and misappropriation of funds, the court previously struck the claim entirely against one defendant while granting leave to amend as against other moving defendants.

The parties provided costs submissions.

The plaintiff indicated its intention to bring a Rule 59.06 motion seeking reconsideration and leave to amend the pleadings against the defendant whose claim had been struck.

The court held that the differing procedural positions of the defendants could affect the proper assessment of costs and that determining costs immediately risked a potentially inequitable or duplicative award.

The court therefore adjourned the determination of costs until after the anticipated Rule 59.06 motion.

The moving defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike portions of the statement of claim alleging civil conspiracy and knowing receipt.

The plaintiff alleged that certain defendants participated in a scheme involving inflated pricing of asbestos encasement products supplied to a hospital project, resulting in breaches of contractual and fiduciary duties.

The court reviewed the elements required to plead civil conspiracy and knowing receipt and concluded that the pleadings lacked essential factual allegations supporting either cause of action.

The allegations were largely speculative and failed to establish concerted unlawful conduct or knowledge of misappropriated trust funds.

The court struck the impugned pleadings, granted leave to amend for most defendants, and struck the claim entirely against one defendant without leave to amend.