COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Rishi v. Kakoutis, 2016 ONCA 863

DATE: 20161116

DOCKET: C62326

Weiler, Rouleau and Roberts JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Sanjeev Rishi and Shalini Bhardwaj

Plaintiffs/ Respondents

and

Ruby Kakoutis, Sylvia Karoumbalis, Louis Kakoutis, John Young, Doreen K. Young, and Century 21 Harvest Realty Ltd.

Defendants/ Appellant

and Sundeep Bahl and Royal LePage Signature Realty Ltd.

Third Parties

Louis Kakoutis, in person

Wayne Laski, for the respondents

Eric Sherkin, for the defendants, John Young, Doreen K. Young, and Century 21 Harvest Realty Ltd., and the Third Parties

Heard and released orally: November 9, 2016

On appeal from the judgment of Justice D. Stinson of the Superior Court of Justice, dated May 30, 2016, with reasons reported at 2016 ONSC 3496.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant appeals the order requiring him to attend a mental examination under s. 105(2) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43.

[2] The appellant submits that a psychiatric report would add nothing because he understands the proceedings and a psychiatric opinion would be of no assistance to the court. The appellant further submits that many experts are biased and again, in that situation, their reports are of no assistance. The appellant has cited the conclusions in prior jurisprudence in support of his position. Accordingly, he asks that the order of the motion judge be set aside because, in his opinion, there is no reason that he be assessed.

[3] The motion judge’s decision to order a mental examination was an exercise of his discretion which, absent error in principle or overriding and palpable error, is entitled to deference from this court. We see no basis to interfere.

[4] The motion judge noted that the progress of the real estate litigation was impeded by the issue of whether the appellant is still under a legal disability such that he requires a litigation guardian in these proceedings. He then carefully reviewed the relevant legal principles and the evidence before him. He noted the presumption of the appellant’s competence and determined that he did not have current medical information that would support an order that a litigation guardian be appointed. However, he determined that a mental examination was warranted, given previous orders of the court and expert reports concerning the appellant’s conduct. He determined that these provided grounds to believe that there may be substance to the allegation of the appellant’s disability.

[5] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

[6] Costs to the respondents in the amount of $3,000, all inclusive.

“K.M. Weiler J.A.”

“Paul Rouleau J.A.”

“L.B. Roberts J.A.”