626381 Ontario Limited et al. v. Kagan, Shastri, Barristers & Solicitors et al.

[Indexed as: 626381 Ontario Ltd. v. Kagan, Shastri, Barristers & Solicitors]

Ontario Reports

Ontario Superior Court of Justice,

Stinson J.

June 14, 2013

116 O.R. (3d) 202 | 2013 ONSC 4114

Case Summary

Civil procedure — Persons under disability — Mental examination — Court having jurisdiction under s. 105 of Courts of Justice Act to order party to attend mental examination to determine whether she is party under legal disability — Such order not violating s. 7 of Charter — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7 — Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 105.

The plaintiff N.A. and/or her numbered company were parties to a large number of actions. In most of those proceedings, the plaintiff was self-represented, but in some of them she was represented by the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee as her litigation guardian. The defendants were concerned that an appropriate determination be made regarding the plaintiff's legal capacity. They brought a motion for directions, asking the case management judge to determine whether the court could and should order the plaintiff to undergo a mental examination to determine if she was a party under a legal disability who had to be represented by a litigation guardian.

Held, the motion should be adjourned.

The court has jurisdiction under s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act to compel a party to undergo a mental examination for the purposes of providing evidence to decide whether the party is a person under a disability for whom a litigation guardian is required. On the assumption that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to court orders based upon statutory authority, an order compelling a party to undergo such a mental examination would not violate s. 7 of the Charter. Where an order is sought under s. 105, the rights of the individual are guarded by several procedural protections. A s. 105 order may only be obtained by way of a motion to the court. The party affected is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard and respond. The decision will be made by an independent third party, based upon judicial principles, and the relief will be granted only where the court is satisfied that the mental condition of the party is in question and that the s. 105 examination is necessary to provide evidence germane to that issue. Recourse may be had to avenues of appeal. In addition, s. 105(3) protects the individual against unnecessary and improperly motivated requests for such an examination by requiring that, when the issue is raised by another party, there must be good reason to believe there is substance to the allegation of legal disability. The information or report that is produced by means of the examination is automatically subject to the deemed undertaking rule and can be subject to a sealing order. For those reasons, while an order requiring a party to undergo a mental examination for purposes of the potential appointment of a litigation guardian may engage s. 7 liberty and security interests, there is good reason to believe that such an order would only be made in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Given that the plaintiff was apparently willing to undergo a mental examination, it was unnecessary at this time to order her to do so. If she failed to undergo assessment within the prescribed time frame, the motion could be brought back before the case management judge.

Abrams v. Abrams, [2008] O.J. No. 5207, 173 A.C.W.S. (3d) 410 (S.C.J.); Neill v. Pellolio, 2001 6452 (ON CA), [2001] O.J. No. 4639, 151 O.A.C. 343, 43 E.T.R. (2d) 99, 110 A.C.W.S. (3d) 185 (C.A.); Rishi v. Kakoutis, [2011] O.J. No. 5593, 2011 ONSC 7184, 76 E.T.R. (3d) 39 (S.C.J.); Temoin v. Martin, [2012] B.C.J. No. 1174, 2012 BCCA 250, 323 B.C.A.C. 3, 32 B.C.L.R. (5th) 1, 77 E.T.R. (3d) 155, [2012] 8 W.W.R. 413, 350 D.L.R. (4th) 558, 216 A.C.W.S. (3d) 238; Twain v. North Bay (City), [2009] O.J. No. 1274, 78 C.P.C. (6th) 99 (S.C.J.), consd

Handfield v. Lacroix, [1988] O.J. No. 2795, 26 C.P.C. (2d) 44, 9 A.C.W.S. (3d) 131 (H.C.J.), not folld

Other cases referred to

B. (A.C.) v. B. (R.) (2010), 104 O.R. (3d) 368, [2010] O.J. No. 4558, 2010 ONCA 714, 269 O.A.C. 335, 325 D.L.R. (4th) 653, 88 R.F.L. (6th) 11, 96 C.P.C. (6th) 18, 194 A.C.W.S. (3d) 873; B.C.G.E.U. v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 1988 3 (SCC), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 214, [1988] S.C.J. No. 76, 53 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 87 N.R. 241, [1988] 6 W.W.R. 577, J.E. 88-1256, 31 B.C.L.R. (2d) 273, 71 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 93, 44 C.C.C. (3d) 289, 88 CLLC Â14,047 at 12250, 30 C.P.C. (2d) 221, 12 A.C.W.S. (3d) 20, 5 W.C.B. (2d) 202; Bilek v. Constitution Insurance, [1990] O.J. No. 3117, 49 C.P.C. (2d) 304, 22 A.C.W.S. (3d) 860 (Dist. Ct.); C. (C.) v. Children's Aid Society of Toronto, [2007] O.J. No. 5613 (S.C.J.); Cameron v. Louden, [1998] O.J. No. 2791, 65 O.T.C. 161, 24 C.P.C. (4th) 50, 81 A.C.W.S. (3d) 32 (Gen. Div.); Direk v. Ontario (Attorney General), [2010] O.J. No. 2503, 2010 ONSC 3428, 97 C.P.C. (6th) 337 (S.C.J.); Godbout v. Longueil (City), 1997 335 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844, [1997] S.C.J. No. 95, 152 D.L.R. (4th) 577, 219 N.R. 1, 97 CLLC Â210-031, 47 C.R.R. (2d) 1, 43 M.P.L.R. (2d) 1, 74 A.C.W.S. (3d) 767; Lico v. Griffiths, 2008 11047 (ON SC), [2008] O.J. No. 1018, 58 C.C.L.I. (4th) 280, 38 E.T.R. (3d) 151, 165 A.C.W.S. (3d) 815 (S.C.J.); Murphy v. Carmelite Order of Nuns, [2004] O.J. No. 6286, 2004 CarswellOnt 9965 (S.C.J.); Pearlman v. Manitoba Law Society Judicial Committee, 1991 26 (SCC), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 869, [1991] S.C.J. No. 66, 84 D.L.R. (4th) 105, 130 N.R. 121, [1991] 6 W.W.R. 289, J.E. 91-1507, 75 Man. R. (2d) 81, 2 Admin. L.R. (2d) 185, 6 C.R.R. (2d) 259, 29 A.C.W.S. (3d) 406; People Trust Co. v. N.A. (April 2, 2012), Toronto, Court File No. 08-CV-352871PD2 (Stinson J.) (Ont. S.C.J.); R. v. Lyons, 1987 25 (SCC), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309, [1987] S.C.J. No. 62, 44 D.L.R. (4th) 193, 80 N.R. 161, J.E. 87-1123, 82 N.S.R. (2d) 271, 37 C.C.C. (3d) 1, 61 C.R. (3d) 1, 32 C.R.R. 41, 3 W.C.B. (2d) 62; R. v. Rahey, 1987 52 (SCC), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 588, [1987] S.C.J. No. 23, 39 D.L.R. (4th) 481, 75 N.R. 81, J.E. 87-623, 78 N.S.R. (2d) 183, 33 C.C.C. (3d) 289, 57 C.R. (3d) 289, 33 C.R.R. 275, 2 W.C.B. (2d) 217; R. v. Seaboyer, 1991 76 (SCC), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577, [1991] S.C.J. No. 62, 83 D.L.R. (4th) 193, 128 N.R. 81, J.E. 91-1312, 48 O.A.C. 81, 66 C.C.C. (3d) 321, 7 C.R. (4th) 117, 6 C.R.R. (2d) 35, 13 W.C.B. (2d) 624; Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580 v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd., 1986 5 (SCC), [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573, [1986] S.C.J. No. 75, 33 D.L.R. (4th) 174, 71 N.R. 83, [1987] 1 W.W.R. 577, J.E. 87-81, 9 B.C.L.R. (2d) 273, 38 C.C.L.T. 184, 87 CLLC Â14,002 at 12037, 25 C.R.R. 321, 2 A.C.W.S. (3d) 243; Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 1993 75 (SCC), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519, [1993] S.C.J. No. 94, 107 D.L.R. (4th) 342, 158 N.R. 1, [1993] 7 W.W.R. 641, J.E. 93-1670, 34 B.C.A.C. 1, 82 B.C.L.R. (2d) 273, 85 C.C.C. (3d) 15, 24 C.R. (4th) 281, 17 C.R.R. (2d) 193, 20 W.C.B. (2d) 589; T. (S.M.) v. Abouelnasr, 2008 14550 (ON SC), [2008] O.J. No. 1298, 171 C.R.R. (2d) 344, 166 A.C.W.S. (3d) 569 (S.C.J.); Torok v. Toronto Transit Commission, [2007] O.J. No. 1773, 157 A.C.W.S. (3d) 179 (S.C.J.); Young v. Young, 1993 34 (SCC), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3, [1993] S.C.J. No. 112, 108 D.L.R. (4th) 193, 160 N.R. 1, [1993] 8 W.W.R. 513, J.E. 93-1766, 34 B.C.A.C. 161, 84 B.C.L.R. (2d) 1, [1993] R.D.F. 703, 18 C.R.R. (2d) 41, 49 R.F.L. (3d) 117, EYB 1993-67111, 43 A.C.W.S. (3d) 410; Zheng v. Zheng, [2012] O.J. No. 2957, 2012 ONSC 3045, 295 O.A.C. 294 (S.C.J.)