ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Dawn Gustafson also known as Dawn Marie Gustafson and Janet Gustafson
Applicants
- and -
Rudolph Joseph Gustafson also known as Rudy Gustafson and Grant Gustafson, in his personal capacity and also in his capacity as power of attorney for person and property of Rudolph Joseph Gustafson
Respondents
COUNSEL:
E. Mendelsohn, for Dawn Gustafson also known as Dawn Marie Gustafson
G. Verdicchio, appearing on behalf of the applicant, Janet Gustafson
Self represented
HEARD: April 16, 2026, at Fort Frances, Ontario
BEFORE: Mr. Justice S.J. Wojciechowski
Endorsement
1Urgent motion heard today. E. Mendelsohn appearing on behalf of the applicant, Dawn Gustafson also known as Dawn Marie Gustafson (“Dawn”). G. Verdicchio appearing on behalf of the applicant, Janet Gustafson (“Janet”). The respondents, Rudolph Joseph Gustafson, also known as Rudy Gustafson (“Rudy”), and Grant Gustafson, in his personal capacity and also in the capacity as power of attorney for person and property of Rudolph Joseph Gustafson (“Grant”) (collectively “the Respondents”), appearing in person via Zoom without legal representation. The applicants also appearing in person via Zoom.
2The urgent motion brought by Dawn and Janet (collectively, “the Applicants”), sought their appointment as interim co-guardians for the property and personal care of Rudy, and the appointment of section 3 counsel to represent Rudy in an application which has been commenced.
Background
3By way of background, an application was issued on February 2, 2026 (“the Guardianship Application”) in which the Applicants are seeking various relief, including the following:
a) that Rudy be assessed as to his capacity;
b) that Rudy be declared incapable of managing property;
c) that Rudy be declared incapable of managing his personal care;
d) that Rudy be declared to be incapable of granting a power of attorney for personal care;
e) that a section 3(1) order be issued directing the Public Guardian and Trustee to arrange legal representation for Rudy;
f) that all powers of attorney be produced, along with the files of lawyers who drafted the powers of attorney;
g) that an order issue declaring any existing powers of attorney to be terminated and that any transactions undertaken pursuant to those powers of attorney be declared null and void;
h) that Grant deliver a statement of accounts;
i) that an order issue restraining Grant from accessing or using any of Rudy’s assets;
j) that Janet and Dawn be appointed co-guardians for the care of Rudy;
k) the production of all medical records and Rudy’s records with lawyers, bankers, accountants or advisors not be governed with any confidentiality or privilege or protection from production; and
l) various other related relief relating to the alleged mismanagement of Rudy’s personal property and personal care by Grant.
4A second application dated August 13, 2025, which also involves Rudy, was commenced by his spouse, Barbara Joan Gustafson (“Joan”), and seeks partition and sale of a Cabin Property jointly owned by Rudy and Joan (“the Partition and Sale Application”). The Partition and Sale Application arises from allegations that Matrimonial Home property was mortgaged to financially assist Grant, and that the Cabin Property should be sold to address the outstanding balance of the Matrimonial Home mortgage in order to avoid foreclosure. Joan commenced the Partition and Sale Application for fear that Rudy was incapable of understanding and appreciating the consequences of the Matrimonial Home mortgage going into foreclosure.
5A case conference was conducted by Brochu J. on February 19, 2026, with respect to the Partition and Sale Application. At that time, Brochu J. was asked to proceed with the hearing in the Partition and Sale Application, but once advised of the pending Guardianship Application, and that Grant was attempting to find counsel to represent Rudy in the Partition and Sale Application, Brochu J. determined that both applications should proceed together. In this regard, it was the view of Brochu J. that the issue of Rudy’s capacity and who should be acting as guardian for Rudy through the Guardianship Application should be determined before the Partition and Sale Application was addressed.
6Timelines were then established for the Guardianship Application to proceed, with the application record to be served and filed by March 20, 2026, any responding materials to be served and filed by April 24, 2026, and reply materials to be served and filed by May 11, 2026.
7A further case management conference was then scheduled for May 19, 2026, before Brochu J. to discuss next steps.
8Finally, the parties were to schedule a 2 hour hearing in mid to late June 2026 for the hearing of the Partition and Sale Application and the Guardianship Application.
Urgent Motion
9This urgent motion was then commenced by the Applicants, and served late in the day on Monday, April 13, 2026.
10The basis for the urgency is set out in the affidavits of the Applicants. Janet filed two affidavits, one dated March 20, 2026, and the second dated April 10, 2026. Dawn filed one affidavit dated April 8, 2026.
11In the affidavits filed by Janet and Dawn, the history of the relationships between Janet, Dawn, Rudy, Joan and Grant are set out in detail, describing a great deal of ongoing conflict and disagreement with respect to the capacity of Rudy and the alleged inappropriate, controlling and abusive treatment of Rudy by Grant.
12It is alleged that Grant has Powers of Attorney for property and personal care executed by Rudy in October 2023 in favour of Grant. Accordingly, Grant has allegedly been mismanaging Rudy’s financial affairs and Rudy’s personal care issues including his health care.
13In reviewing the affidavit of Janet dated March 20, 2026, the evidence includes a recording dated December 19, 2023, between Grant and Rudy in which Grant berates and makes degrading comments towards Rudy. Significant evidence is led regarding events in 2023 and in 2024, including the fact that Rudy’s care was being managed by Janet, Dawn and Joan, which care was being interfered with by Grant.
14In reviewing the affidavit of Dawn dated April 8, 2026, evidence is adduced that in the past, Grant isolated Rudy and was aggressive to Rudy, with incidents described in the Fall of 2019, the Spring of 2021, September 2024, and May 2025. Janet also describes that as of April 2023, Grant has been interfering with and inserting himself into Rudy’s care.
15There is also evidence adduced that Grant interferes with Rudy’s finances, citing examples in October 2021 and December 2023, the latter date on which suspicious withdrawals from Rudy’s bank account were noted.
16Examples are then given of a head injury Rudy incurred after a fall on March 2, 2026, and painful leg conditions caused by blood clots on April 1, 2026. Both resulted in visits and stays in the hospital, and after the last admission following the April 2026 blood clot diagnosis, Grant took Rudy to Grant’s home where he is currently residing. In other words, Rudy did not return to the matrimonial home where Joan is residing.
17In March 2026, after Rudy’s fall, the evidence of Dawn indicates that Grant called the ambulance in order to transport Rudy to the hospital. Grant also subsequently took Rudy back to the hospital in order to remove staples which had been used to treat Rudy’s head wound. Dawn also provided evidence that when Grant got involved with Rudy’s care, health care information was not shared with Dawn or Janet or Joan.
18In April 2026 when Rudy experienced immobility due to blood clots, again Grant took him into the hospital for care, but did not tell anyone. And upon discharge, again no one was told where Rudy went after the hospital.
19Janet’s evidence clearly expresses concern that Grant is currently preventing Rudy from taking blood thinners that Rudy needs in order to treat the blood clots, and she is worried that as a result, the blood clots could become life-threatening. This concerns stems from events back in September 2024 which involved Grant allegedly preventing Rudy from taking blood thinner medications, which in turn resulted in Rudy not taking blood thinner medications from that time to the present.
20There was no evidence presented which indicates whether or not Rudy is, in fact, taking prescribed medications following his last discharge from the hospital.
21The affidavit of Janet dated April 10, 2026, confirmed the April 1, 2026, events involving the blood clots in Rudy’s leg. In addition, she recalled Rudy having a prescription for blood thinners which Rudy stopped taking in November of 2024.
22Based upon Janet’s background as a nurse, she expressed concern that Rudy left the hospital after three days of being admitted for the blood clots since, in her experience, usually similar patients stayed longer. She too is worried that Grant is preventing Rudy from taking blood thinners, or that Grant is interfering in Rudy’s ability to access the medications which Janet believes he needs. Compounding this worry is the fact that despite attempting to get information about Rudy from Grant, Grant has refused to discuss Rudy’s situation with Janet, Dawn and Joan.
23Again, no evidence exists as to what medications were prescribed, or what Rudy’s health care providers ordered as Rudy’s discharge plan.
24The evidence of Janet and Dawn is much more fulsome and detailed with respect to the conflict that exists between them and Grant. Clearly there is no love lost between these siblings, and despite the evidence which suggests both sides only want what is best for Rudy, the approach of Janet and Dawn in this regard is completely at odds with what Grant feels is in his father’s best interests.
25Janet and Dawn clearly feel that Grant is trying to isolate Rudy, making decisions which could cause further deterioration in his physical and mental health, and suggesting that this is mainly because Grant wants to maintain control over Rudy’s assets.
26It is just as clear in the evidence of Janet and Dawn that the comments from Grant suggest that they are the villains in the family, that Rudy has said that he does not want to be around Janet and Dawn, and that Janet and Dawn are also only interested in Rudy’s well being as long as he has a healthy bank account.
Urgent Hearing Motion Submissions
27Once I heard from counsel for Janet and counsel for Dawn, I asked Grant for his position. He claimed that everything was fine, nothing to see here, and that Rudy was being properly cared for both mentally and physically.
28I note in this regard that Grant did not file any responding materials, and as such, his submissions were without any evidentiary foundation. Having said that, he submitted that materials had not been served upon him, and whether or not that is the case, I acknowledge that at best, he was provided with barely two days in order to prepare materials for the urgent motion.
29I was therefore prepared to hear what Grant had to say on the basis of the urgency alleged by Janet and Dawn.
30Rudy was also present, and while he was sitting beside Grant – perhaps influenced somewhat or to a large extent by Grant – I engaged Rudy with some questions. In providing answers, Rudy clearly looked in Grant’s direction before and while answering. But what he said – again, without being reduced into an affidavit or sworn statement – suggested that he was aware of the head injury in March 2026, that he recalled the issue a few weeks ago with his legs and the blood clots, and that he was taking blood thinner medication – twice a day – which came from the prescription pill bottle shown to everyone at the hearing, on Zoom, by Grant.
31I also asked Rudy how he was doing, and his response was positive without any concerns being expressed. He did not express any desire to return to the matrimonial home with Joan, and confirmed that he was not happy there while his daughters were around.
Analysis on the Urgency Issue
32The evidence presented by the Applicants provided a history of conflict and turmoil in the Gustafson Family which stemmed back to at least 2023. Most of the concerns expressed were “historical”, and I use that term to mean the majority of issues did not recently arise.
33These concerns are undoubtedly the basis for the Guardianship Application, and will be part of the relevant evidentiary record when that matter is heard.
34However, in the current urgent motion, the historical concerns of Janet and Dawn, have been long outstanding without anything being done to address them until the Guardianship Application was filed. There is no urgency related to the historical concerns.
35The main urgent concern regarding Rudy’s health was the suspicion that he was not taking blood thinners as prescribed by the hospital. With the recent medical emergency involving blood clots, not taking these meds could seriously impact Rudy’s health.
36However, while the recent event of April 1, 2026, increases the need to properly take prescribed medication, the suggestion is that Rudy has not been taking blood thinners which were prescribed over the past 1.5 years since the Fall of 2024. No action was taken at that time, or since then until this week, to address Rudy’s medical condition involving blood thinners.
37And while no evidence was sworn and filed by the Respondents, Rudy said he was taking blood thinners, and Grant was able to show a pill bottle with a prescription for Apixaban which is a blood thinner medication.
38The evidence of Janet and Dawn is clearly not conclusive of whether Rudy is or is not taking his prescribed medication, and focusses on what they fear might be happening based upon Grant’s past behaviour. Hearing from Rudy that he is taking his meds, and with Grant having the filled prescription available to share during the hearing, this suggests that at this time, Rudy’s health care is being provided to at least a basic standard which does not put Rudy in jeopardy of immediate harm.
39I therefore do not find any urgency with respect to Rudy’s situation and am not prepared at this time to make any orders which alter the current status quo.
40This does not mean that I have determined that Grant’s actions are being carried out with the best interests of Rudy in mind. Or that his care of Rudy is not somehow impacting Rudy’s physical or mental well being. But I do not have sufficient evidence to determine an urgent situation exists which demands an immediate response by the courts.
41I am also cognizant of the fact that the Applicants admit that Powers of Attorney exist and were executed by Rudy in order to put Grant in charge of Rudy’s property and personal care. While Janet and Dawn are challenging the legal capacity of Rudy to provide these Powers of Attorney, the evidence suggests that they were prepared by a law firm pursuant to a retainer supporting this work. It may be that evidence will be adduced in the future to support undue influence upon Rudy at the time he signed these documents, and a production of the solicitor’s file may support the position of the Applicants that the Powers of Attorney are not worth the paper upon which they are written.
42But at this time, the Powers of Attorney exist, and Rudy’s capacity is still a live issue, all of which has been flagged as issues to resolve in the Guardianship Application.
43I am therefore not prepared to grant any relief on an urgent basis regarding the guardianship of Rudy’s interests.
Section 3 Counsel
44The one issue which I will address at this Urgent Motion is the appointment of section 3 counsel.
45The Applicants request that the Public Guardian and Trustee (“PGT”) be asked to appoint counsel to represent Rudy.
46In canvassing the appointment of counsel for Rudy, Grant agreed that it would make sense to have someone engaged solely on behalf of Rudy so that his views and preferences could be presented in the Guardianship Application such that his best interests were protected.
47I agree that the facts presented support and have met the requirements of section 3 of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, namely that the capacity of Rudy is in issue and that he does not have legal representation at the present time.
48Directing the PGT to arrange for legal representation for Rudy is appropriate in all the circumstances, and on the basis that Janet and Dawn and Grant all agree with this approach, I am prepared to make an order in this regard.
Adjournment of Urgent Motion
49During the urgent motion argument, I advised the parties that notwithstanding my decision, whatever issues of the urgent motion remained following these reasons, would be adjourned to Thursday, April 23, 2026.
50At this next motions court day, I am presiding as is Brochu J. who is the case management judge for this matter. Between us, we will decide who hears the continuation of this matter on April 23, 2026.
51The purpose of the next appearance on April 23, 2026, will be to determine issues arising from the decision to appoint section 3 counsel, including payment of a retainer and any ancillary orders necessary to enable the section 3 counsel to do his or her job.
52With respect to the latter issue, concerns have been raised by Janet and Dawn as to whether Grant will permit section 3 counsel access to Rudy in a manner which does not interfere with the role of section 3 counsel. In addition, the ability of section 3 counsel to access documents and information which section 3 counsel deems necessary should be addressed.
53During the urgent motion, I made it clear to Grant that while we proceeded without formal evidence in support of his position, well in advance of the next hearing date, he should prepare and file affidavit evidence should he wish to challenge arguments from Janet and Dawn which anticipate Grant’s interference with section 3 counsel’s duty to represent Rudy’s interests without influence or interference.
54The appearance on April 23, 2026, will also address issues raised in the case management directions of Brochu J. in her endorsement of February 19, 2026, and specifically whether there is any need to adjust or reconfigure the timelines and steps which were originally contemplated.
55It appears that it was anticipated that reply materials in the Guardianship Application were to be filed by April 24, 2026. I do not know the status of those materials, but by the representations of Grant that he is still seeking legal counsel, I suspect this deadline will not be met.
56It is incumbent upon Grant to present a plan for the completion of steps required in the Guardianship Application, including whether he will file responding materials and, if so, by what date. Cross examinations on materials may be necessary, and ultimately a date for argument must be scheduled. Grant will be expected to present his plan and be prepared to discuss all steps required to be undertaken before the hearing is held to determine if the Powers of Attorney should be set aside and Janet and Dawn be co-guardians for the property and personal care of Rudy.
57The other issue which shall be addressed on April 23, 2026, is the position of Grant with respect to his duties as a fiduciary while acting as a guardian of Rudy’s property pending the hearing of the Guardianship Application.
58In light of the provisions of s. 32 of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, Grant shall provide evidence and his position insofar as his willingness and ability to perform the duties which are statutorily prescribed.
59In particular, Grant shall be prepared to address the following:
i. Confirmation is required that Grant will exercise his duties diligently, with honesty and integrity and in good faith for Rudy’s benefit.
ii. What is Grant’s plan to provide personal care to Rudy as required, including ongoing and regular medical care to ensure any health care issues are addressed, including the recent episode of blood clots?
iii. Has Grant explained to Rudy what Grant’s duty and powers are, and how will he involve Rudy in decisions which Grant will be making about Rudy’s property?
iv. What is Grant’s plan to seek and foster regular personal contact between Rudy and Janet and Dawn and Joan?
v. How will Grant consult with Janet and Dawn and Joan regarding decisions made and care provided to Rudy?
vi. How will Grant keep Janet and Dawn and Joan updated with respect to the status of Rudy’s health and general well being, including any changes in his physical or mental health status?
vii. Will Grant keep accounts of all transactions involving the property of Rudy, and if so, provide details of exactly how this accounting will be undertaken and maintained?
60Again, Grant should be addressing these issues in affidavit form, and ensure his evidence is served and filed well in advance of next week’s hearing.
61Finally, with respect to any costs associated with this urgent motion, I am reserving those for determination by the judge hearing the Guardianship Application, and any party seeking costs shall make submissions as part of that hearing.
The Hon. Mr. Justice S.J. Wojciechowski
Released: April 17, 2026
CITATION: Gustafson v. Gustafson, 2026 ONSC 2318
COURT FILE NO.: CV-26-0009-00
DATE: 2026-04-17
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Dawn Gustafson also known as Dawn Marie Gustafson and Janet Gustafson
Applicants
- and –
Rudolph Joseph Gustafson also known as Rudy Gustafson and Grant Gustafson, in his personal capacity and also in his capacity as power of attorney for person and property of Rudolph Joseph Gustafson
Respondents
ENDORSEMENT
Wojciechowski J.
Released: April 17, 2026