No-one appearing

The court granted a motion to dispense with service of the statement of claim and motion on the deceased’s estate, finding that the plaintiff had made extensive but unsuccessful efforts to locate a representative for the estate.

The court relied on the Rules of Civil Procedure and relevant case law to permit the proceeding to continue in the absence of a representative, and ordered that any surplus proceeds be paid into court on notice to the beneficiaries.

Costs were fixed at $8,943.47.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside an administrative dismissal order and extend the time to serve a statement of claim arising from a 2013 motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff's former counsel issued a statement of claim in 2015 but failed to serve it on the defendant insurer.

Subsequent counsel commenced a second, duplicative action without realizing the first existed, leading to the first action being administratively dismissed for delay.

The court found the delay was caused by solicitor inadvertence and that the plaintiff always intended to proceed with the claim.

The court also found the defendant insurer would not suffer significant prejudice, as it had been actively litigating the same issues in the second action and had amassed relevant medical evidence.

The motion was granted, the dismissal was set aside, and the time for service was extended.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking an extension of time to complete the examination for discovery of the representative of the defendant insurance company.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing the plaintiff had exceeded the seven-hour limit under Rule 31.05.1 and sought to strike the affidavit sworn by a staff member of the plaintiff's counsel.

The court declined to strike the affidavit, finding it appropriate for a procedural motion.

The court granted the plaintiff an additional 1.5 hours for discovery, noting the complexity of the 17-year business relationship and the conduct of defence counsel, but declined to award costs due to the plaintiff's failure to address time limits in the discovery plan.

Dilico Anishinabek Family Care appealed an order dismissing its motion to strike a custody application brought by the foster parents of an Indigenous child.

The child had been placed with the foster parents under an alternative care agreement, while a customary care agreement was in place with the child's First Nation.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in concluding that out-of-court customary care agreements fall outside the CYFSA.

The court held that the applicants were foster parents and thus prohibited from bringing a custody application under the CLRA, and that deference was owed to the placement decision of the agency acting under the authority of the First Nation.

The applicant sought to retroactively vary a 2003 ex parte child support order from Alberta, which had deemed his income at $43,000 and resulted in nearly $49,000 in arrears.

The applicant provided evidence of a prolonged period of severe drug addiction, homelessness, and incarceration, which prevented him from responding to the original order or seeking a variation sooner.

The court found this constituted a material change in circumstances justifying a retroactive variation.

The court recalculated the arrears based on the applicant's actual income, imputing minimum wage for years where his income fell below that threshold, reducing the total arrears to $8,531.44.

Following a guardianship decision appointing the applicant as guardian of the person and property of an incapable individual, the court addressed costs.

The applicant sought costs against one respondent who had opposed the application.

The respondent argued that costs should be paid from the incapable person's assets and that the applicant’s settlement offer should not affect the award.

The court held that the applicant was successful and entitled to costs because the respondent opposed the application, and that the settlement offer was not determinative.

Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity basis in the all‑inclusive amount of $10,000 payable by the respondent.

The applicant daughter sought appointment as guardian of property and personal care for an incapable elderly parent diagnosed with Alzheimer dementia.

The stepfather, who held existing continuing powers of attorney for property and personal care, opposed the application and argued guardianship was unnecessary.

The court considered the statutory framework under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 and whether the existing powers of attorney continued to serve the incapable person’s best interests.

Although no misconduct by the attorney was established, the evidence showed the applicant had long managed the incapable person’s medical and personal care decisions and was best positioned to continue doing so.

The court concluded that no less restrictive alternative was adequate and appointed the applicant guardian of both property and personal care.