CITATION: Narine v. Narine, 2026 ONSC 1202
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Randy Narine, in his capacity as a named attorney for property and personal care under a Continuing Power of Attorney dated July 13, 2023, for Chanardaye (Tina) Narine
AND:
Mandy Narine and Chanardaye (Tina) Narine
BEFORE: J.T. Akbarali J.
COUNSEL: Joanna Weiss and Mark Polese, for the applicant
Edwin G. Upenieks and Frank M. Pinizzotto, for the respondent Mandy Narine
No one appearing for the respondent Chanardaye (Tina) Narine
HEARD: February 19, 2026
ENDORSEMENT
Overview
1The applicant brings this motion for urgent relief, seeking an order: (i) suspending or removing the respondent Mandy Narine as the attorney for personal care, and the attorney for property of the respondent Chandaraye (Tina) Narine; (ii) appointing the applicant as attorney for personal care and attorney for property of the respondent Chandaraye (Tina) Narine; (iii) an order, if necessary and advisable, appointing a litigation guardian or s. 3 counsel for Chandaraye (Tina) Narine.
2Because the parties to this proceeding share the same last name, for clarity, I respectfully refer to them by their first names in these reasons.
Brief Background
3The evidentiary record on this one-hour urgent motion is lengthy. Below I set out some of the background on key issues raised in this motion. To the extent I need to refer to additional evidence in my analysis, I do so.
4Tina is 66 years old. She has been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and diabetes. Her cognitive decline began in 2022 and has accelerated since that time. A recent capacity assessment completed by Dr. Sara Mitchell has concluded that Tina is incapable as to property, personal care, granting or revoking a power of attorney for property or personal care, and instructing counsel. The written report is not yet available, but the parties agree that Dr. Mitchell has verbally reported her findings. Dr. Mitchell is also in the process of completing a retrospective capacity report. The results of that assessment are not yet available.
5Randy and Mandy are Tina’s children. Each accuses the other of neglecting and abusing Tina, and of misusing her property.
6Tina lived with Mandy in various properties that Tina owned from late 2017 or early 2018 to 2023. When Mandy got married in 2021, her husband Terry and his son Dimitri stayed with Tina and Mandy for a few weeks, until their return to Trinidad (where they lived) to finish out Dimitri’s school year and plan for a permanent return to Canada. In March 2023, Mandy took a trip to be with Terry and Dimitri in Trinidad. She planned to stay until June, when Dimitri and Terry would return to Canada with Mandy. Tina did not want to be away from Canada for so long, so she declined to accompany Mandy.
7In May 2023, Randy visited Tina. After that visit, he told Mandy she could not return to the house Mandy and Tina shared and accused Mandy of elder abuse. He instructed Mandy not to contact Tina, but that all communications should go through him.
8Mandy deposes that she and her family did not return to the home she shared with Tina because she was afraid of Randy. They rented a two-bedroom basement apartment. She did, however, visit Tina. When Randy became aware that Mandy was visiting Tina on weekends, Randy began taking Tina to his home on weekends. Then, in August 2023, Randy brought Tina to live with him in his home in Shelburne, Ontario.
9Mandy deposes that in approximately October 2023, Tina called Mandy for help; she said she wanted to return to her own home, but Randy was refusing to allow her to leave. Mandy and Terry drove to Shelburne and picked Tina up. They brought her to live with them in their apartment.
10Mandy discovered she was pregnant in December 2023. Mandy deposes that Tina suggested selling the house in which they had previously lived together (which was vacant) and buying a property in which she and Mandy’s family could live. Eventually the vacant property was sold, and Tina and Mandy’s family moved into a property at 26 Guildhouse Drive, on which both Tina and Mandy are on title.
11In January and February 2024, Randy made two calls to the police causing them to conduct wellness checks on Tina. No concerns were noted.
12In April 2024, Tina travelled with Mandy’s family to Trinidad. Randy showed up in Trinidad unexpectedly. Randy took Tina to the police station in Trinidad and complained that Mandy had kidnapped Tina from Canada and was not allowing Tina to return home with him. The police asked Mandy to bring Tina’s passport to the police station. She did so. After meeting with Tina alone, the local police told Mandy to give Tina’s passport to her. She did. Tina then chose to leave with Mandy. At the end of their holiday, Tina returned to Canada with Mandy and her family to the home they share at 26 Guildhouse Drive.
13According to Mandy, Randy began texting and telephoning Tina and upsetting her. Tina told Mandy she needed some space from Randy, so Mandy told Randy that Tina did not want to see him. Subsequently, Randy served his application record on September 7, 2024.
14Following the service of the application, the parties consented to the retrospective and contemporaneous capacity assessment to which I have already referred, and to a functional living assessment for Tina.
15Ms. Nira Rittenberg conducted the occupational therapy functional needs assessment. Her report, dated July 25, 2025, indicates that Tina expressed that she likes living with Mandy and wants Mandy to take care of her. Tina also expressed that she wanted Mandy to be her attorney and she considers Mandy to be more honest than Randy. She indicated it was her choice to leave Randy’s home, and she expressed her view that Randy ultimately seeks power and control.
16Ms. Rittenberg’s report also notes that Tina indicated she did not know why Randy did not speak to her, and that she missed him sometimes. She was sad that Randy’s children were growing up without her, and specifically mentioned Randy’s son William.
17Ms. Rittenberg concluded that Tina was functioning adequately due to a repetitive, familiar, and seemingly well supported simple routine. She noted Tina’s contentment in the company of her family.
18Through counsel, the parties arranged for Tina to go out for dinner with William and Randy’s ex-partner, Charlene, who is William’s mother, on October 10, 2025. According to Randy, after the first dinner, William and Charlene expressed some concerns about Tina’s appearance. Charlene deposes that Tina reported being lonely and having dizzy spells. Tina also struggled to remember where she was.
19Tina enjoyed seeing William, so another dinner was arranged for January 2, 2026. On that occasion, Charlene and William picked Tina up at Mandy’s home. Charlene noted Tina was unbalanced, and William had to help her walk to the car. According to Charlene, Tina reported that Mandy keeps secrets from her and is not a nice person. She told Charlene that Mandy had hit her on the head.
20Charlene began audio recording their conversation; several transcripts are in the record. Charlene deposes that Tina told her that Mandy swears and hits her and does not buy her medications. Tina expressed a wish to stay with Randy.
21Charlene called 211 which advised her to take Tina to a shelter or to the police station. Instead, Charlene took her to Randy’s home. Charlene deposes that Tina had lost more weight since she had seen Tina in October. Charlene called Mandy to report that she had brought Tina to Randy’s house and explain what Tina had said. Mandy denied abusing Tina in any way.
22Randy telephoned emergency services. Paramedics transported Tina to the emergency department. Randy deposes that Tina’s blood sugar was very high and likely reflective of non-compliance with her diabetes medication. A CT scan revealed that Tina had likely suffered a stroke since her last CT scan, which had taken place on October 11, 2023.
23Tina has not returned to Mandy’s care since January 2, 2026. She has been residing with Randy. Randy deposes that Tina has reported excessive vomiting, dizziness, headaches, open wounds on her leg, urinary and bowel incontinence, and heightened startle responses since she began living with him again. Mandy disputes Randy’s account of Tina’s physical condition.
24Tina executed continuing powers of attorney appointing Mandy and Randy jointly as her attorneys for property and personal care on March 2, 2022. Tina then executed continuing powers of attorney appointing Randy as her attorney for property and her attorney for personal care on July 13, 2023. She then executed continuing powers of attorney appointing Mandy as her attorney for property and her attorney for personal care on January 17, 2024.
25In an endorsement dated January 19, 2026, Gilmore J. directed that this urgent motion be heard but limited its scope: “The only relief sought on the motion will be a temporary suspension of the 2024 POAs and an order confirming that Tina will continue to reside with Randy pending the hearing of the application. Other matters such as retrospective capacity issues and the misappropriate allegations will be dealt with in the application.”
26Justice Gilmore’s endorsement also noted that because Tina has been found by a designated capacity assessor to be incapable and she does not have s. 3 counsel, “a litigation guardian should be appointed for her for the motion and the application.” However, no litigation guardian was appointed for Tina before the motion.
Issues
27This motion raises the following issues for determination:
a. Can the motion be adjudicated at all given that no litigation guardian has been appointed for Tina?
b. If it can be, should the 2024 powers of attorney be temporarily suspended?
c. Where should Tina reside pending the hearing of the application?
Preliminary Matter: The Absence of a Litigation Guardian
28Justice Gilmore’s order that a litigation guardian be appointed was not complied with. In the circumstances, it is not a role that either Randy or Mandy can occupy. No one else appears to be close enough to Tina and unaligned with the parties in this application to be able to act. The Public Guardian and Trustee should be approached.
29However, given the urgency around the issues about where Tina should live, I am prepared to make an interim interim determination, which can be revisited at the request of Tina through a properly appointed litigation guardian.
30Once a litigation guardian is in place, the parties shall schedule a case conference to determine next steps, including whether a return of this motion ought to be scheduled, or if the interim interim order I make shall remain in place pending the hearing of the application on the merits.
Should the 2024 powers of attorney be suspended?
31Under the Substitute Decisions Act 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30 (“SDA”), when capable, a person can appoint an attorney to make decisions on their behalf. As Himel J. held in Sly v. Curran at para. 14, the SDA was designed to allow someone to choose a person to make personal care decisions for them in the event of their incapacity. The court does not micromanage the day-to-day decisions of the substitute decision maker: Sly, at para. 14; Corbett v. Corbett, 2020 ONSC 4157, at para. 8(ii).
32The legislation and the case law emphasize the importance of respecting an incapable person’s wishes: Souter et al. v. Poitras, 2023 ONSC 6983 at para. 37; Simpson v. Mehta, 2023 ONSC 3063, at para. 20.
33In this case, the most recent powers of attorney executed by Tina appoint Mandy in her sole capacity to act. The scope of this urgent motion does not extend to an assessment of the validity of those powers of attorney; the retrospective capacity assessment is not yet available in any event. As a result, I proceed on the basis that they are valid; their ultimate validity may be addressed, if necessary, at the hearing of the application or the return of this motion, if appropriate.
34The question for me is whether the 2024 powers of attorney ought to be temporarily suspended.
35In Public Guardian and Trustee v. Dhuruvasangary, 2024 ONCA 289, at para. 4, the Court of Appeal reiterated out the two-part test for terminating a power of attorney:
a. Is there strong and compelling evidence of misconduct or neglect? and
b. Is the attorney serving the incapable person’s best interests?
36Although on this urgent motion, Randy seeks an interim order suspending the powers of attorney, rather than a termination of the powers of attorney, I will apply the same test. No one has proposed another test. The considerations relevant to terminating a power of attorney are logically the same as the considerations relevant to suspending a power of attorney.
37To override Tina’s wishes as enshrined in the powers of attorney, the burden of proof lies with Randy: Souter, at para. 39.
38A person acting under a power of attorney is not held to a standard of perfection; the question is whether the incapable person is being reasonably cared for: McNutt v. Draycott, 2014 ONSC 5363, at paras. 42-43.
39In my view, Randy has failed to satisfy his burden to meet the test set out in Dhuruvasangary.
40Mandy has provided detailed evidence in her affidavit about the nature of her relationship with Tina and Tina’s regular schedule while living with Mandy. It discloses a loving and supportive environment for Tina, consistent with the conclusions of Ms. Rittenberg. Many of Randy’s allegations are directly contradicted or easily explained by Mandy’s evidence. For example:
a. Randy alleges that Mandy does not fill Tina’s prescriptions and Tina has not been taking her diabetes medication. He asserts that Tina’s high glucose levels on January 2-3, 2026 were likely because of non-compliance with her diabetes medication. He states that he relies on information from the emergency department doctor and Tina’s bloodwork results, but it is not clear to me whether the physician opined that Tina’s bloodwork reflected long-term non-compliance with diabetes medication. In any event, if Randy seeks to advance the doctor’s opinion through his affidavit, it is not just unclear; it is hearsay. Mandy gives evidence about the routine for administering Tina’s medication in her house. (She also includes a letter from Tina’s pharmacist indicating that Tina’s medications have been regularly prepared and promptly picked up, although the letter is also hearsay.) Mandy explains that Tina takes her diabetes medication in the morning and in the evening. On January 2, 2026, Tina did not take her diabetes medication in the evening, because Mandy expected Tina to return to their home after dinner and to take her diabetes medication then. Tina’s glucose levels from January 2-3, 2026 could reflect the fact that Tina did not take her second dose of medication that night. Moreover, it appears Tina did not eat dinner on January 2, 2026, which could also have impacted her glucose levels. The only reliable conclusion to reach from this evidence is that Tina’s glucose levels were high on the evening and morning of January 2-3, 2026.
b. Randy alleges that Mandy has not been taking Tina to her medical appointments. Mandy deposes that Tina’s last scheduled medical appointment with her endocrinologist was on March 21, 2025, with her neurologist on June 13, 2025, and with her regular physician, Dr. Kale, on March 3, 2025. Mandy deposes that she attended all of these appointments with Tina, and that no follow-ups were required at that time. (This information is supported by a letter from Dr. Kale, which is also hearsay.) The OHIP summary Randy includes in his motion record reveals regular medical care for Tina from 2020 until May 2025, and then again in early January 2026. There is nothing in the OHIP record that suggests Tina is not receiving the medical care she requires.
c. Randy alleges that Tina had an open wound on her leg when she arrived at his home on January 2, 2026. He alleges Mandy pushed Tina, causing the wound. Mandy deposes that during a visit to Trinidad in November 2025, Tina tripped on some stairs resulting in a cut on her shin, which Mandy treated with Polysporin and a bandage. She deposes that the cut has healed but there is still a scab. The photo of Tina included in Randy’s material shows a scab on Tina’s leg, not an open wound.
d. Randy alleges that Mandy has failed to renew Tina’s OHIP card. Mandy explains that the card has been renewed, and she has been advised to use the expired card with the renewal documentation she received when the card was renewed until the new card arrives. The new card has not yet arrived. It appears to be quite late in arriving. Mandy deposes that she has followed up with the Ministry and been told to continue using the expired card with the renewal documentation until the new card arrives. On February 10, 2026, Mandy was informed by the receptionist at Dr. Kale’s office that Tina’s health card has been cancelled. She believes Randy has cancelled the card. Randy denies having done so. Rather, he states he confirmed with the ServiceOntario that Tina’s card had not been cancelled, but a new card mailed to 26 Guildhouse Drive. Regardless of the status of the physical card, Mandy clearly renewed Tina’s OHIP card and there is no indication that Tina has not been able to obtain health care with the documents she has.
e. Randy notes the progressive decline in Tina’s cognitive abilities, including her poor scores on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. He notes that Tina likely had a stroke based on the most recent CT results. These concerns about Tina’s deterioration may be valid, but there is nothing to suggest that Mandy’s treatment of Tina has caused or contributed to them.
f. Randy bolsters his concerns about Tina’s condition with an email from a cousin in Trinidad that describes the “severe decline” in Tina over the previous year, including physical weakening, increased confused, and repetitive storytelling. The cousin opines that the deterioration is “far beyond normal aging.” She suggests that Tina has not been taken to routine doctor visits and her medical conditions have not been properly monitored or managed. There is no explanation as to why this relative who does not live in Canada is in a position to speak to Tina’s medical appointments or opine on the normalcy of Tina’s decline, especially in view of her diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. In any event, the entire email is hearsay.
g. Similarly, while Randy describes the steps he has taken to arrange supportive care for Tina since she has been living with him, Mandy’s affidavit explains the care she had arranged for Tina while Tina was living with her. In September 2025, Mandy was arranging adult day programs for Tina and arranged in-home services for Tina with a personal support worker through a care agency in December 2025, after the family returned from a trip to Trinidad. Randy has also arranged services for Tina through Ontario Health at Home, and he advises that he is looking into private in-home care for Tina. On this motion, I am not considering who is better placed to care for Tina, but whether the 2024 powers of attorney ought to be suspended applying the test I have already described. For the purposes of that analysis, nothing in the care arrangements made for Tina by either Randy or Mandy suggest that Mandy is neglecting Tina, or that she is not acting in Tina’s best interests.
h. Randy alleges that Tina is incontinent of bowel and bladder, is vomiting and dizzy, and experiencing headaches. Mandy deposes that she knows of only two past instances of urinary incontinence which occurred when Tina was in unfamiliar environments. Mandy deposes that Tina has not experienced the symptoms Randy relates while in her care. Mandy believes that the recent stress in Tina’s life from living in a new environment is the cause of these symptoms. Randy has not offered any explanation, and it does not appear that he has sought medical care for Tina with respect to these symptoms.
i. Randy alleges that Mandy has isolated Tina from her family and friends. Mandy’s evidence reveals a number of happy family photos, and text messages indicating that Tina is in contact with family and friends.
j. Randy alleges that Mandy refuses to allow Tina to use her phone. Mandy deposes that Tina would frequently lose her cell phone, and after she lost in March 2025, she told Mandy not to get her another. Because of the ongoing deterioration in Tina’s cognitive abilities, Mandy deposes that Tina cannot reliably operate a cell phone. Mandy’s explanation is supported by the functional needs assessment which indicates that Tina loses her phone regularly and cannot reliably operate it.
k. Randy complains that Mandy did not provide necessary personal items belonging to Tina when Tina most recently began staying with him. Each has their own version of events. Neither behaved wholly reasonably. In my view, the dispute around Tina’s personal belongings has more to do with the tension between Mandy and Randy than it has to do with either of their care of Tina.
l. Randy alleges that Tina’s liquid assets have been depleted. Randy’s evidence reveals that funds have been taken out of one account. He does not know that the funds were depleted, only that they were moved. There is a non-dissipation order in effect until the capacity assessment is completed, which Mandy has proposed extending to the hearing of the application. The issues around misuse of Tina’s property will be adjudicated at the hearing of the application. As I have noted, each of Randy and Mandy alleges that the other has misused Tina’s property.
41Randy relies on Tina’s reports that Mandy has hit her. I have reviewed the transcripts of Tina’s discussion with William and Charlene. Tina is obviously confused during the discussions. Charlene is leading her to confirm that Mandy has been abusive, and Tina acquiesces. I do not read those transcripts as a reliable, independent report from Tina that she has been mistreated.
42The ambulance call report from January 2, 2026 indicates that paramedics were advised that Tina had alleged that Mandy had hit her, and paramedics were told that Tina had a history of being abused by her late husband and by Mandy. The notes record that “patient is able to recall 3 separate times that she has been assaulted by her daughter. The patient is unable to recall events leading up to the assault.” The ambulance notes also record pain on palpitation to the top of Tina’s head with no noted contusion, abrasion, or redness. The notes also record Tina’s confusion.
43I cannot place significant weight on the report of abuse to the paramedics. It appears that the paramedics were given information about the alleged abuse by others present, and that Tina confirmed that she had been assaulted three times, but without any recall of events around the alleged assault, all while the paramedics noted her confusion.
44Other evidence in the record causes me to question the credibility of Randy’s narrative. For instance:
a. A text exchange between Charlene and Mandy after the first dinner includes Charlene telling Mandy that Tina was “singing [Mandy’s] praises during dinner.”
b. Randy relies on Tina’s report to Ms. Rittenberg that Mandy has taken all of her assets and put them into her own name, although it is plain that Tina is on title to the home they share. The question is not whether Mandy has to account for the management of Tina’s assets (the questions of misuse of Tina’s property do not form part of this urgent motion); the point I raise is that Randy relies on Tina’s obviously incorrect report as if it were true.
c. As I have already noted, Randy describes a scab on Tina’s leg as an “open wound” in his affidavit.
d. An affidavit in the record from Paula Phillip, a law clerk with Tina’s long-time law firm, indicates that Randy took a directing role in the preparation of Tina’s testamentary documentation. She reports that Randy would often bring Tina to the law firm and was upset when he was excluded from meeting with Tina and her lawyer. She reports that Tina was visibly more relaxed when Randy was not in the meeting with her. Ms. Phillip also deposes that during the summer of 2023, when Tina was living with Randy, Tina would call the office while Randy was at work. She would whisper because she was not allowed to speak to anyone on the phone, and Randy’s girlfriend was home. Tina reported that Randy had taken away access to her bank cards. On October 25, 2023, Tina left an urgent message for Ms. Phillip. When Ms. Phillip called her back, Tina reported that she was afraid, that Randy yelled at her often, and would not allow her to have any contact with Mandy. Ms. Phillip states that Tina never made any allegation that Mandy was abusive to her. At the end of 2023, Tina called the office to ask to change her continuing power of attorney for property and personal care and her will. Ms. Phillip deposes that when Randy found out about the change, he called the office and was very angry. He also attempted to visit the office, but they did not allow him entry. Ms. Phillip’s evidence is supported by an email she sent to Tina’s lawyer in which she contemporaneously recorded information about the urgent call from Tina. It is also supported by a note to file written by Ms. Phillips that indicates that in April 2024, Tina called to talk about changing her power of attorney back to Randy alone, but Ms. Phillip could hear Randy in the background of the call telling Tina what to say. Ms. Phillip’s evidence is consistent with Ms. Rittenberg’s report that Tina was concerned that Randy was trying to control her, which is also consistent with Mandy’s evidence.
45Considering the evidence as a whole, I conclude that Mandy has explained every concern that Randy has raised, and that Randy has at times exaggerated his concerns. I find that Tina’s reports that Mandy had hit her are unreliable and appear to have been coaxed by Charlene.
46On this record, Randy has not established strong and compelling evidence of misconduct or neglect. He has not established evidence of misconduct or neglect on a balance of probabilities.
47Similarly, I find that the evidence supports Mandy’s argument, that she is not engaging in misconduct or neglect, and she is serving Tina’s best interests.
48I would not, on an interim interim basis, suspend the 2024 powers of attorney. It follows that Mandy, as Tina’s attorney for personal care, has the right and obligation to make decisions regarding Tina’s shelter. Mandy has decided that Tina should return to live with her. She is entitled to make that decision.
49Moreover, I am not concerned that residing with Mandy will put Tina at risk. Rather, I am satisfied that Mandy will properly care for Tina.
50With respect to the allegations of misuse of property, I have already indicated that they await the hearing of the application. Justice Dietrich put in place a preservation order on October 23, 2024. That order continues pending the outcome of the capacity assessments. Mandy’s counsel suggested that continuing the order until the hearing of the application would be sufficient protection for Tina’s property interests. I agree. The non-dissipation order shall continue until the hearing of the application on its merits.
51Finally, I note that Mandy has led evidence alleging that Randy has been abusive to Tina and others. I do not need to address that evidence, much of which Randy has not responded to in any event, to reach a determination on this record. If this motion returns as an interim motion, Randy should respond to those concerning allegations because any determination that the 2024 powers of attorney are invalid would, in my view, have to be accompanied by a consideration of whether the 2023 powers of attorney should be temporarily suspended in view of Mandy’s serious allegations about Randy.
Costs
52At the hearing of this application, I proposed to the parties that they upload their costs outlines and any offers to settle, clearly marked, so that I would not inadvertently review them before writing reasons on the merits. I proposed that after the reasons on the merits were written, I would review the costs material uploaded and proceed to determine costs. The parties were in agreement with this process, and it is the process I have followed.
53The three main purposes of modern costs rules are to indemnify successful litigants for the costs of litigation, to encourage settlement, and to discourage and sanction inappropriate behaviour by litigants: Fong v. Chan (1999), 46 O.R. (3d) 330, at para. 22.
54Subject to the provisions of an act or the rules of this court, costs are in the discretion of the court, pursuant to s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43. The court exercises its discretion considering the factors enumerated in r. 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. Reg. 194, including the principle of indemnity, the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party, and the complexity and importance of the issues. Overall, costs must be fair and reasonable: Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario (2004), 71 O.R. (3d) 291 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 38. A costs award should reflect what the court views as a fair and reasonable contribution by the unsuccessful party to the successful party rather than any exact measure of the actual costs to the successful litigant: Zesta Engineering Ltd. v. Cloutier (2002), 21 C.C.E.L. (3d) 161 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 4.
55Mandy is the successful party on this interim interim motion and is presumptively entitled to her costs.
56Randy delivered an offer to settle this motion on the basis that he would become Tina’s interim attorney for property and personal care, and Tina would continue to reside with him, with Mandy receiving reports on Tina’s condition, and the ability to visit Tina on conditions and with Tina’s agreement. It is apparent that Randy has not done better than his offer; the offer does not impact my costs determination.
57Mandy argues she should be entitled to costs on a substantial indemnity scale, because Randy engaged in self-help measures, by keeping Tina at his home, and withholding her from Mandy. A proceeding was ongoing and an urgent date could have been secured. She seeks elevated costs to mark the court’s disapproval of Randy’s conduct. She also seeks elevated costs because Randy has made unproven allegations rooted in dishonesty or malice, in that he alleges that Mandy physically and mentally abused Tina, when I have found she does not. I am prepared to award elevated costs to reflect the court’s disapproval of Randy turning to self-help measures rather than availing himself right away of the court’s availability to deal with urgent matters. I am not prepared to award elevated costs based on Randy’s unproven allegations of abuse in circumstances where I have only adjudicated this motion on an interim interim basis, and when Tina was unable to participate.
58Randy’s bill of costs supports full indemnity fees of $21,692, and full indemnity costs all-inclusive of $25,206.18. In contrast, Mandy’s bill of costs supports full indemnity fees of $57,978.50 and all-inclusive full indemnity costs of $65,781.56.
59With respect to quantum of costs, I note the following:
a. The issues on this application were very important to the parties, and especially to Tina;
b. Mandy’s materials were very detailed but responsive to the allegations made by Randy. I do not find that Mandy’s materials were unnecessarily broad. Rather, the fact that her fees are greater than Randy’s reflects her detailed and appropriate response to his allegations.
c. That said, her costs are higher than Randy would reasonably expect, even allowing for the detailed response she delivered.
d. The fact that the motion proceeded urgently led to increased costs. The issues were not legally complex, but they were factually complex.
60I fix Mandy’s fair and reasonable substantial indemnity costs at $45,000. Randy shall pay this sum to Mandy within thirty days.
Summary of Orders
61On an interim interim basis, the 2024 powers of attorney shall continue in force.
62The parties shall seek the involvement of the Public Guardian and Trustee as litigation guardian for Tina.
63Once a litigation guardian is appointed, the parties shall seek a scheduling appointment to determine next steps to either advance this motion to an interim hearing if the litigation guardian wishes to do so, or to timetable the next steps to advance the application to a hearing on the merits.
64The non-dissipation order granted by Dietrich J. in her order of October 23, 2024 shall be extended until the hearing of the application on the merits.
65Randy shall pay Mandy her costs of this interim interim motion fixed at $45,000 all-inclusive within thirty days.
J.T. Akbarali J.
Date: February 26, 2026