No submissions

The appellant, a litigation financer, appealed a motion judge's order granting priority over settlement funds to the respondent, the debtor's former partner.

The debtor had signed a separation agreement promising to pay the respondent from any settlement, and later signed irrevocable directions assigning the settlement funds to the appellant.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the separation agreement did not constitute a valid equitable assignment because it lacked a clear intention to assign the specific funds, whereas the irrevocable directions did.

The appellant was granted priority over the funds.

The applicants sought to appoint Shilan Hasan as guardian of the person and property for Munir Nuri Saed under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, via a summary disposition procedure.

The court declined the application due to significant non-compliance with statutory requirements, including failure to properly serve the allegedly incapable person and relevant family members, an incorrect style of cause, and the absence of mandatory Management Plans, Guardianship Plans, and assessor statements.

The court emphasized the necessity of strict adherence to the rigorous application process outlined in the SDA, which provides crucial protections for allegedly incapable individuals.