Richard Ashok Coutinho

The applicant father brought an application to be appointed as the guardian of property and personal care for his adult son, who has severe autism and developmental delays.

The court found the son incapable of managing property and personal care under the Substitute Decisions Act.

The court appointed the father as guardian of property and personal care, noting his long-standing devotion and appropriate management plans.

The Public Guardian and Trustee was granted oversight of the son's Registered Disability Savings Plan.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of a review motion and appeals in a family law matter involving guardianship and estate issues.

The court awarded costs to the successful party, Michael Childs, on a partial indemnity basis.

The costs were to be paid from the assets of the incapable person (Eileen Childs) through her guardian, BMO Trust Company, with the amounts to be offset against any inheritance received by the unsuccessful parties.

Two consolidated appeals concerning guardianship and personal care arrangements for an elderly woman with Alzheimer's disease.

The applications judge appointed one daughter as guardian of personal care and a trust company as guardian of property, with compensation awarded to the daughter for past care services.

A subsequent motion to vary the guardianship order was heard based on changed circumstances.

The appellants challenged the guardianship appointments, the compensation award, and alleged judicial bias and misconduct by the section 3 counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all appeals, finding no error in the applications judge's decisions and rejecting allegations of bias and misconduct.

The appellant appealed the motion judge's approval of a settlement entered into by the Public Guardian and Trustee as her litigation guardian, as well as the approval of legal fees.

The Court of Appeal found ample basis on the record to support the motion judge's conclusions and noted there was no admissible medical evidence to support an order to continue the proceeding without the litigation guardian.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Following a guardianship dispute among siblings concerning an elderly parent rendered incapable after a stroke, the applicant sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $67,000 after partial success in the underlying application.

The court had previously invalidated competing powers of attorney and appointed certain siblings as guardians while restoring the applicant’s access to the parent but refusing to grant her financial control.

In determining costs under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court considered divided success, the applicant’s unsuccessful attempt to validate earlier powers of attorney, and evidence showing mismanagement of the parent’s finances though dishonesty was not proven.

The respondents’ allegations of fraud were not found to be reprehensible or unreasonable given the evidentiary record.

Balancing fairness and reasonableness, the court concluded that neither side should recover costs.

Multiple motions arose in estate-related litigation involving allegations of undue influence over an elderly party.

Respondents sought leave to pursue costs against solicitors under Rule 57.07 and to consolidate related actions.

Counsel appointed under s.3 of the Substitute Decisions Act brought a preliminary motion after being unable to meet with the elderly party whose representation was in question.

Evidence suggested possible obstruction and undue influence affecting her ability to obtain independent legal advice.

The court held that the circumstances justified consideration of appointing a litigation guardian and granted leave for the motion to proceed, adjourning all related motions to allow a meeting between the party and s.3 counsel.