Paul R. Sweeny

The applicant daughter sought appointment as guardian of property and personal care for an incapable elderly parent diagnosed with Alzheimer dementia.

The stepfather, who held existing continuing powers of attorney for property and personal care, opposed the application and argued guardianship was unnecessary.

The court considered the statutory framework under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 and whether the existing powers of attorney continued to serve the incapable person’s best interests.

Although no misconduct by the attorney was established, the evidence showed the applicant had long managed the incapable person’s medical and personal care decisions and was best positioned to continue doing so.

The court concluded that no less restrictive alternative was adequate and appointed the applicant guardian of both property and personal care.

Following dismissal of an application under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act as out of time, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicant argued the matter was public interest litigation and that no costs should be awarded.

The court held that applications under the Act do not attract a blanket public interest exception and that unsuccessful applicants may be ordered to pay costs.

Although the respondents sought substantial indemnity or significant partial indemnity costs, the court found the claimed hours excessive and declined to award enhanced costs.

Costs were fixed at a reduced all-inclusive amount reflecting reasonableness and access to justice considerations.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking production of the full Special Investigations Unit (SIU) investigative file in a civil action alleging negligence, assault, and Charter breaches arising from a police use-of-force incident.

The SIU, a non‑party, resisted production of certain civilian and police witness statements that had been obtained under assurances of confidentiality.

The court applied the factors from Ontario (Attorney General) v. Stavro and emphasized that a moving party must demonstrate both relevance and that proceeding to trial without the documents would be unfair.

The court found the plaintiff had not made reasonable efforts to obtain evidence from available witnesses and could not rely on the SIU investigation as a substitute for civil discovery.

Production of the remaining witness statements was therefore refused.

The minor plaintiff was injured when struck by a tow truck near the proposed defendants' home.

The minor's father was appointed litigation guardian and sued the tow truck owner and driver, who counterclaimed for negligent supervision and third-partied the homeowners.

After the limitation period expired, the plaintiffs moved to add the homeowners as defendants.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the father knew the material facts on the day of the accident, and held that a litigation guardian's potential conflict of interest does not suspend the running of the limitation period.

The applicants sought removal of the estate trustee under ss. 5 and 37 of the Trustee Act and the appointment of a replacement trustee.

The court reviewed the governing principle that removal of a trustee depends primarily on the welfare of the beneficiaries and whether the continuation of the trustee would impair proper administration of the trust.

Evidence showed escalating hostility between the estate trustee and beneficiaries, questionable handling of estate assets, and conduct demonstrating disregard for the beneficiaries’ interests.

The court concluded that the level of animosity and breakdown in trust would prevent proper administration of the estate and ongoing trust obligations.

The estate trustee was removed and an independent lawyer was appointed as replacement trustee.