Morris Holervich

The applicant brought a motion to remove the respondent as Power of Attorney for Property for their incapable father, citing the respondent's failure to provide proper accounts and receipts.

The court found strong and compelling evidence of neglect, as the respondent repeatedly failed to follow court orders to produce supporting documentation for expenditures.

The court terminated the respondent's power of attorney and appointed the applicant as Guardian for Property, subject to conditions preventing the father's removal from his current long-term care facility without further court approval.

To facilitate the transition, the court passed the respondent's disorganized accounts without requiring further submissions.

The estate trustee brought a motion to approve the passing of accounts for an estate.

The responding parties challenged the legal fees claimed by the trustee's counsel for estate administration, the trustee's claim for compensation, and sought their own legal fees.

The court found the estate was not complex and reduced the trustee's legal fees significantly, denying the claim for legal assistant time and reducing the lawyer's time.

The court also denied the trustee's claim for compensation, finding the work was performed by the law firm.

The responding parties' legal fees were approved to be paid from the estate, and they were awarded costs of the motion payable by the trustee.

The municipality brought a motion seeking dismissal of a counterclaim for delay arising from alleged flooding and property damage related to road drainage work.

The counterclaiming party had failed to comply with a status hearing timetable requiring agreement on a discovery plan and delivery of an affidavit of documents.

Applying Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held it had jurisdiction to dismiss the counterclaim on motion for non‑compliance with a timetable arising from a status hearing.

The counterclaiming party failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the prolonged delay and did not establish that the moving party would suffer no non‑compensable prejudice.

The court dismissed the counterclaim for delay.