CITATION: Bishop v. Bishop, 2007 ONCA 170
DATE: 20070315
DOCKET: C45907
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
CHRISTINE CATHERINE Bishop and ANNE ALMA MCGOURTY (Applicants/Respondents) v. JAMES MICHAEL BISHOP (Respondent/Appellant)
BEFORE:
DOHERTY, MOLDAVER and CRONK JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Julian Binavince
for the appellant
Annette Casullo
for the respondents
HEARD & ENDORSED:
March 13, 2007
On appeal from the order of Justice J. Stephen O’Neill of the Superior Court of Justice dated July 31, 2006.
A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T
[1] We see no merit to the argument that the proceedings were “unfair” because his mother or the Public Guardian were not made parties. There is nothing in the proceedings to support the contention that the appellant did not have a full opportunity to present his case and challenge that of the respondents.
[2] The trial judge’s finding that “Alma” did not have the capacity to grant the power of attorney in September 2005 was fully warranted in the totality of the circumstances, including but not limited to the medical evidence.
[3] The appellant has not pursued the order denying an order directing the passing of accounts.
[4] The s. 140(1) order cannot stand. It was not sought on a timely basis, was not argued and there are no reasons given for the order. The order is set aside.
[5] The request for leave to appeal costs is dismissed.
[6] The respondents were largely but not totally successful. They offered to agree to a variation of the order deleting the s. 140 order about a week ago. Costs to the respondents fixed at $15,000.00, inclusive of GST and disbursements.