Court File and Parties

Court of Appeal for Ontario Date: 2022-04-28 Docket: C69753

Before: Fairburn A.C.J.O., Pepall and Sossin JJ.A.

Between: Narine Loojune, Applicant (Appellant)

And: Dataram Loojune and Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, Respondents (Respondents)

Counsel: Narine Loojune, acting in person Sarah Jones, for the respondent Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee No one appearing for the respondent Dataram Loojune

Heard: April 21, 2022

On appeal from the order of Justice Barbara A. Conway of the Superior Court of Justice, dated July 8, 2021.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant has a nephew, Dataram Loojune, who was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2003. The nephew received a structured settlement of $2.1 million in 2005. As the nephew was deemed incapable with respect to property and personal care, the appellant was appointed as his guardian. That appointment came with responsibilities, including that the appellant account for the management of his nephew’s property. Despite repeated efforts to have the appellant come into compliance with his court ordered obligations of guardianship, he refused to do so. Accordingly, the Public Guardian and Trustee (“PGT”) sought and was granted an order: (1) substituting the PGT as the guardian of property for the appellant’s nephew; and (2) requiring the appellant to pass his accounts, as required by the court under the former guardianship order. The motion judge also ordered the PGT to obtain additional information about the nephew to ascertain whether the existing arrangements for guardianship of person are still appropriate.

[2] This is an appeal from the motion judge’s order.

[3] The hearing in this court commenced with a request by the appellant to adjourn the appeal on the basis that he wished to gather and then submit evidence to this court that he says will show, among other things, that an employee of the PGT has acted fraudulently and given false testimony on a previous occasion. The adjournment application was dismissed because there was no credible evidence supporting the application and, in any event, the purported fresh evidence would have no impact on the issues to be decided on appeal.

[4] The appellant makes three overarching arguments.

[5] First, the appellant maintains in his Notice of Appeal that the motion judge applied the wrong legal test when determining the motion. We disagree. The motion judge applied the correct test, one rooted in the “best interests” of the nephew.

[6] Second, the appellant argues that the PGT and the insurer acted fraudulently and have engaged in a campaign of harassment. There is no credible evidence to support that submission.

[7] Finally, the appellant argues that the motion judge was biased and not impartial. We see nothing in the record to support that suggestion.

[8] The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is ordered to pay the PGT $3,000 in costs, all inclusive.

“Fairburn A.C.J.O.”

“S.E. Pepall J.A.”

“L. Sossin J.A.”