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.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment in a defamation action arising from nursing notes and a SCAN report created during a hospital birth.

The plaintiff alleged the notes and report falsely characterized his conduct and were made maliciously.

The court accepted that the statements were defamatory and had been published but found they were made on an occasion of qualified privilege and were protected by statutory immunity under the Child and Family Services Act for reporting suspected child protection concerns.

The court held there was no evidence of malice capable of defeating the privilege.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action.

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.