COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Roberts, Thorburn and Coroza JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Donna Christine Victor, personally, and as Power of Attorney for John “Jonas” Vieraitis
Applicant (Respondent/Moving Party)
and
Terrie Cox, John Vieraitis and John “Jonas” Vieraitis
Respondents (Appellants/Responding Parties)
Counsel:
Michael A. Jaeger, for the respondent/moving party, Donna Christine Victor
Terry Corsianos, for the appellants/responding parties, Terrie Cox and John Vieraitis
Greg Roberts1
Heard and rendered orally: June 30, 2026
REASONS FOR DECISION
1These proceedings are between siblings concerning the care of their 102-year-old father, including a contempt motion against the son, John Vieraitis, returnable on July 10, 2026, before the Superior Court of Justice. The issue of their father’s capacity to make decisions regarding property and personal care is very much in dispute. The father moved into a long-term care residence. The son removed the father from that residence and is living with him on the family farm.
2The daughter brings a motion to quash the responding parties’ four appeals from Sweeny R.S.J.’s orders: in sum, an order appointing s. 3 counsel for the parties’ father; orders dealing with the father’s residence and decision-making on an interim basis; and, the last order, requiring the police to attend to return the father to his long-term care residence from the family farm. The father has not yet returned to his long-term care residence.
3We conclude that the four orders are interlocutory for the purposes of appeal because they do not finally determine any substantive issues between the parties, as is clearly evidenced by Gibson J.’s very recent June 19, 2026 order. Gibson J. ordered, among other things, that: 1) s. 3 counsel is relieved; 2) pending the return of the contempt motion against the son on July 10, 2026, notwithstanding previous orders, the father may continue to reside with his son at the family farm, if he wishes to do so; and 3) the police enforcement provisions are suspended until the return of the July 10, 2026 hearing.
4The appeals therefore lie to the Divisional Court with leave.
5The motion to quash the appeals is therefore allowed.
6The moving party is entitled to her costs of the motion and the appeal from the responding parties (not the father). We agree that those costs should be on a substantial indemnity scale. The responding parties were advised by the moving party and alerted by this court of the interlocutory nature of the orders under appeal. The responding parties filed extensive materials that were irrelevant to the issue of the appropriate appeal route. The moving party ought not to have been put to the expense of responding to the appeals and bringing this motion. The responding parties (not the father) are jointly and severally liable to the moving party for her costs in the amount of $21,879.06, which are payable within 30 days of today.
“L.B. Roberts J.A.”
“Thorburn J.A.”
“S. Coroza J.A.”
Footnotes
- Mr. Roberts sought to appear for John “Jonas” Vieraitis, but he had no order appointing him as counsel under s. 3 of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 30 and therefore had no standing before this court.