R.B. Reid, J.

The mother of a severely disabled adult plaintiff brought a motion to be appointed as his litigation guardian and to be permitted to represent him without legal counsel in an action against a residential care facility.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action as a nullity because it was commenced by a non-lawyer, or alternatively to appoint the Public Guardian and Trustee.

The court held that commencing the action without a lawyer was an irregularity, not a nullity, and refused to dismiss the claims.

However, the court found the mother could not act as litigation guardian because she failed to retain counsel as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure, failed to file the requisite affidavit, and lacked the necessary indifference to the outcome of the litigation.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer was appointed as litigation guardian.

Following a summary judgment motion where the plaintiffs successfully established entitlement to TFSA funds, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiffs sought costs on a partial or substantial indemnity basis, arguing the defendant should have interpleaded.

The defendant argued it acted reasonably in freezing the funds due to a court order in related estate litigation and sought its own costs.

The court found the plaintiffs acted unreasonably by pursuing the action after learning of the estate litigation order.

The plaintiffs' request for costs was dismissed, and the defendant was awarded $2,500 in costs payable from the TFSA funds prior to distribution.

Following the dismissal of a negligence claim on a summary judgment motion, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs relying on the former Rule 20.06 and Rule 49 settlement offers, while the plaintiff argued for no costs on the basis that the litigation raised a novel issue of public importance and involved unequal resources.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were not justified because the plaintiff did not act unreasonably in bringing the motion and the settlement offers did not trigger Rule 49.10 consequences.

Although the defendant was the successful party, the court reduced the partial indemnity costs due to divided success where the plaintiff established duty and breach but failed to prove damages.

Costs were awarded to the defendant in a reduced amount.

The child protection agency brought a summary judgment motion seeking a protection finding and Crown wardship of a child with severe autism and developmental delay under the Child and Family Services Act.

The mother consented to the order while the father opposed the motion and sought a trial and return of the child to his care.

The court found overwhelming evidence that the child required highly structured, specialized care and that the father’s mental health history, alcohol misuse, lack of cooperation with the agency, absence of meaningful contact with the child, unstable housing, and failure to present a viable care plan created a real risk of harm if the child were returned to his custody.

Applying the summary judgment test under the Family Law Rules, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The child was declared in need of protection and made a Crown Ward with parental access at the agency’s discretion.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment alleging negligence by an insurance broker for failing to properly offer optional income replacement benefits under an automobile insurance policy.

The court held that insurance providers owe a duty of care to customers when providing information about available coverage and found that the insurer breached the standard of care by failing to meaningfully explain optional benefits as required under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

However, the plaintiff failed to establish causation because the evidence did not show on a balance of probabilities that optional benefits would have been purchased if properly offered.

An adverse inference was drawn from the absence of evidence from the spouse who had primary dealings with the insurer.

As a result, the negligence claim failed.