Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-24-0000-2526-0000

Date: 2026-02-17

Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Peggi Licursi and Donald Bruce McKay, Plaintiffs

And: Bank of Montreal, Shirlene Dawn McKay, and Lisa Feldstein, Defendants

Before: Justice C. Boswell

Counsel: Jonathan Friedman and Nicole Harris, for Peggi Licursi Samir Chhina for Donald Bruce McKay James R.G. Cook for Bank of Montreal Samuel E. Abbott for Shirlene Dawn McKay Katherine Rawson for Lisa Feldstein

Heard: February 4, 2026

Endorsement

[ 1 ] The citation for this case belies its true character. This is a bitter contest between two sisters over the care of their elderly father and control over his life's savings.

[ 2 ] Donald McKay is the aging parent at the centre of the dispute. He is 92. He lives on a secure "memory care" floor in a retirement home in Pickering called "Abbeylawn Manor." He has a list of health challenges which include hypertension, high cholesterol, Type-2 diabetes, stage-5 kidney disease, colon cancer, bladder cancer, and gastroesophageal reflux disease. He uses an ostomy bag. He is frail and undoubtedly has cognitive impairments. How serious those impairments are is the focus of this motion.

[ 3 ] Peggi Licursi and Shirlene McKay are the only surviving children of Mr. McKay. A son, Donald Jr., has predeceased. Mr. McKay's spouse died in August 2021. Ms. Licursi and Ms. McKay are the bitter protagonists of this proceeding and a companion application, which I will describe in a moment.

[ 4 ] Ms. McKay moves for an order, pursuant to s. 105(2) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 (the "CJA"), requiring Mr. McKay to undergo an assessment of his cognitive capacity to, amongst other things, instruct counsel, to enter into a binding settlement agreement, or to commence this proceeding. Mr. McKay opposes the order.

[ 5 ] The following reasons explain why I believe a capacity assessment is well-advised and, in the result, am granting the motion.

The Litigation Between the Parties

[ 6 ] As I alluded to, there are two related proceedings on the go involving Mr. McKay. Both involve disputes between Ms. Licursi and Ms. McKay over his care and the control of his assets.

The Action

[ 7 ] This action was commenced by Ms. Licursi and Mr. McKay by Statement of Claim dated December 4, 2024. A total of $500,000 in damages is sought, broken down as $400,000 in general damages, $50,000 in special damages, and $50,000 in punitive damages.

[ 8 ] The claim is poorly drafted.[^1] It is meandering, unfocused, and fails to make clear precisely what relief is sought against each of the named defendants.

[ 9 ] The main allegation advanced in the claim appears to be that Ms. McKay fraudulently obtained a power of attorney for property with respect to Mr. McKay in 2019 and used it to defraud Mr. McKay of over $400,000.

[ 10 ] Though it is not clear, it appears that the plaintiffs allege that the Bank of Montreal was negligent in permitting Ms. McKay to access her father's bank accounts using the purportedly fraudulent power of attorney.

[ 11 ] Equally, if not more unclear, is the basis of Ms. Feldstein's purported liability. Ms. Feldstein was a lawyer retained at some point by Ms. McKay. The claim appears to suggest that she somehow breached the Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers, though it lacks an explanation as to how such a breach, even if it occurred, might result in liability to the plaintiffs, or either of them.

[ 12 ] Ms. Feldstein is also alleged to have sent a letter to the Bank of Montreal that the plaintiffs describe as defamatory of Ms. Licursi, even though they do not have a copy of the letter and are unable to describe its contents.

[ 13 ] I conducted a case conference in this proceeding on July 30, 2025. Counsel expressed agreement at that time that the only remaining live issue in this proceeding is Ms. Licursi's claim against Ms. McKay for damages for defamation. Ms. Licursi's counsel advised that he would like to see the defamation claim joined with the related proceeding, which I will describe in a moment, and to otherwise bring this proceeding to an end.

[ 14 ] There is an impediment, however, to finalizing any resolution of this proceeding. Ms. McKay takes the position that her father lacks the capacity to instruct counsel and requires a litigation guardian. In light of her position, I directed that she bring a motion for a capacity assessment, pursuant to s. 105 of the CJA. The motion now before the court is a result of that direction.

The Application

[ 15 ] The related proceeding I mentioned is an application bearing court file number CV-24-00002716-00ES. The application was commenced by Ms. McKay in her capacity as litigation guardian and power of attorney for property of Mr. McKay, who is described in the application as an "incapable person."

[ 16 ] The respondents to the application are Ms. Licursi, the late Donald McKay Jr., Bozai Law Professional Corporation, and Asim Mehdi Khan, who I understand to be the principal of Bozai Law.

[ 17 ] The application seeks a wide range of relief, including, amongst other things:

(a) Production of documents, including any powers of attorney executed after October 9, 2019; a copy of Mr. McKay's will; financial and medical records relating to Mr. McKay; lawyer's files in relation to the creation of any powers of attorney for Mr. McKay as well as any transfers of real estate owned by Mr. McKay;

(b) A certificate of pending litigation over 1429 Parkham Crescent, Pickering;

(d) An order setting aside the transfer of 1429 Parkham Crescent from Mr. McKay to Mr. McKay and Ms. Licursi jointly;

(e) An order that Ms. Licursi holds title to any of Mr. McKay's property in trust for Mr. McKay, on the basis of an equitable trust;

(f) A declaration that Ms. Licursi breached a fiduciary duty owed to Mr. McKay and damages arising from any such breach;

(g) A declaration that Bozai law and Mr. Khan were negligent in their representation of Mr. McKay and damages arising from such negligence;

(h) An order setting aside any powers of attorney prepared on Mr. McKay's behalf after August 10, 2023 on the basis of a lack of capacity;

(i) A declaration that Mr. McKay's power of attorney for property, dated October 9, 2019, in favour of Ms. McKay, is of full force and effect;

(j) A capacity assessment of Mr. McKay, pursuant to s. 79 of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 30; and

(k) An order requiring Ms. Licursi to pass her accounts as Mr. McKay's attorney for property for the period April 2, 2023 to the present.

[ 18 ] Ms. McKay alleges in the application that her father named her as his attorney for property pursuant to a power of attorney for property dated October 9, 2019. She further alleges that her father has been incapable since at least August 2023. Subsequent to that date, Ms. Licursi is alleged to have orchestrated a new power of attorney over her father's property in her own favour. She is further alleged to have used that power of attorney to transfer funds out of Mr. McKay's bank accounts. And she is alleged to have arranged for the transfer of Mr. McKay's home from Mr. McKay's name into his and her names as joint tenants. Bonzai law acted on the transfer and they are alleged to have failed to protect Mr. McKay's interests.

[ 19 ] Ms. McKay brought a motion, on June 26, 2025 for a variety of relief relating to the return and preservation of Mr. McKay's property. Healey J. made an order, on consent, for, amongst other things, the setting aside of the transfer of Mr. McKay's home to Mr. McKay and Ms. Licursi jointly. She also made a non-dissipation order against all parties, with respect to Mr. McKay's assets.

[ 20 ] There is a further pending motion in the application presently set for March 12, 2026. The motion has been brought by Ms. Licursi for an order that Ms. McKay be removed as Mr. McKay's litigation guardian on the basis that she is in a conflict of interest. Ms. Licursi further asks that Mr. McKay be made a party respondent to the application and that Ms. McKay be named as the applicant in her personal capacity.

The Motion

[ 21 ] As I have indicated, Ms. McKay moves for an order for a capacity assessment of Mr. McKay. Her Notice of Motion specifically asks that an assessment be ordered to determine Mr. McKay's capacity to instruct counsel, to enter into a binding settlement agreement, to manage property, and to commence this action.

[ 22 ] The Notice of Motion further requests an order, should Mr. McKay be assessed as incapable, declaring his claims in this proceeding to be a nullity, or alternatively, appointing a litigation guardian for him.

[ 23 ] Counsel to Ms. McKay served and filed a draft order prior to the hearing of the motion. The relief sought in the draft order is broader than what was sought in the Notice of Motion. It proposes the following:

(a) An assessment of Mr. McKay's capacity to instruct counsel, to enter into a binding settlement agreement, to manage property, to commence litigation, to grant or revoke power of attorney documents, and to make a last will and testament, on the following terms:

(i) it is to be completed by Dr. Fiona Menzies at Mr. McKay's residence;

(ii) it is to be both retrospective and contemporaneous;

(iii) Ms. McKay is to be authorized to obtain copies of Mr. McKay's health records from and after February 1, 2022; and

(iv) the cost is to be borne by Mr. McKay;

(b) An order that the deemed undertaking rule is not to apply to any evidence obtained through the assessment; and

[ 24 ] I intend to address all of the relief sought in the draft order, even though much of it was not formally sought in Ms. McKay's Notice of Motion. My decision to do so is informed by the following factors:

(a) There is no prejudice or unfairness, in my view, to any party in doing so;

(b) The issues were fully engaged and argued at the hearing of the motion;

(d) I anticipate that once the assessment is complete, this action will be resolved. The issues relating to Mr. McKay's ongoing care, the control of his assets, and the status of any testamentary instrument will be determined in the related application. Obviously, the capacity assessment will be of central importance in that proceeding. It is appropriate, in my view, to contemplate how the capacity assessment might be engaged in that proceeding, to reduce the prospect that a second capacity assessment will be necessary.

Evidence as to Capacity

[ 25 ] There appears to be no disagreement that Mr. McKay suffers from a wide range of physical health challenges, some quite serious. The disagreement is about his cognitive status and whether there is a good reason to believe that there is substance to Ms. McKay's assertion of incapacity.

[ 26 ] The record before the court contains substantial evidence regarding Mr. McKay's health in general and about his mental status more specifically.

[ 27 ] Ms. McKay provided a detailed history which includes the following:

(a) On April 6, 2023, Mr. McKay attended an in-person kidney care clinic. Ms. McKay was not at the appointment but was subsequently asked by clinic staff to attend her father's next appointment in July 2023. Concerns were expressed that Mr. McKay was struggling with memory issues and could not recall recent treatments he had received or that he had gone for blood work three days prior;

(b) On August 9, 2023, Ms. McKay attended at her father's residence to help him with his ostomy bag. It had apparently emptied onto his bed. She found him with feces all over his hands. A case manager from Home and Community Care Support Services recommended to Ms. McKay that her father be admitted to the hospital as, in the manager's view, he had become a danger to himself;

(c) Mr. McKay was admitted to hospital on August 10, 2023. A CAT scan was performed that showed that Mr. McKay had previously suffered a stroke. There is some evidence to suggest that the stroke occurred in February 2022;

(d) While in hospital during August 2023, Mr. McKay was assessed by the hospital's geriatric team. The consult notes of Dr. Fatima, dated August 16, 2023, reflect observable symptoms of delirium, confusion, and poor short-term memory. An attempt was made to administer the Montreal Cognitive Assessment[^2] but for reasons not made clear, Mr. McKay was unable to complete it. Dr. Fatima noted that Mr. McKay was able to state where he was, but had difficulty stating his timeline in the hospital and current events, and was not oriented as to date, day of the week, and year;

(e) Dr. Fatima noted that Mr. McKay had "moderate stage of dementia" and would need increased home care supports along with supervision. Ms. McKay was advised by hospital staff that her father should not return home because he was a danger to himself;

(f) On August 23, 2023, Ms. McKay was advised by hospital staff that a transitional placement would be found for her father while he waited for a bed at a long-term care home;

(g) Mr. McKay was discharged from the hospital on August 28, 2023 and transferred to Lakeridge Health. A discharge summary included a diagnosis of confusion and moderate mixed dementia. He was deemed incapable, though to be fair, the discharge note is not clear about what he was deemed incapable of;

(h) On September 12, 2023, Ms. McKay received a phone call from a nurse at Lakeridge Health. She advised that staff had found Mr. McKay on the floor of a washroom. His ostomy bag had come off and he was covered in feces. The next day, Ms. McKay spoke to her father. She deposed that he was deeply confused. He told her that he was at a hotel and that Donald Jr. was going to pick him up and take him to a dentist appointment. Neither of those two things was true. The next day he advised Ms. McKay that he was at the airport in Ottawa, waiting to get on a flight, while he was actually still at Lakeridge;

(i) Ms. McKay was her father's attorney for personal care, pursuant to a power of attorney for personal care dated September 13, 2005. She resigned from that role on October 4, 2023, however, as a result of ongoing conflict she was having with Donald Jr.;

(j) Mr. McKay was discharged from Lakeridge Health on October 16, 2023 at the request of Ms. Licursi and Donald Jr. He returned to live at his own home, where I believe Donald Jr. was living as well;

(k) On November 10, 2023, Ms. McKay spoke with a worker at Home and Community Care Support Services who advised her that Mr. McKay had undergone a capacity assessment through Community Care. He failed the assessment. He was unable to answer question about his finances;

(l) Mr. McKay had a further appointment with the kidney care clinic on January 16, 2024. The attending physician's clinical note for the occasion identified dementia, confusion, and memory deficits as "active problems." His dementia was described as being "moderate stage". A note of a social worker who met with Mr. McKay noted that his cognitive status appeared "poor". He did not know who the Prime Minister was, nor the President of the United States;

(m) On June 14, 2024, Mr. McKay was moved into a secure memory care floor at Abbeylawn Manor, where he continues to reside; and

(n) On May 17, 2025, during a visit to Abbeylawn Manor, Ms. McKay observed that her father had urinated himself. When she asked if he knew how long he had been living there, he said about a week, even though it had been almost a year. She showed him a photograph of her mother and her siblings. He was unable to remember the names of his late wife or either of his daughters.

[ 28 ] Ms. Licursi deposed, in an affidavit sworn September 16, 2025, that she is not aware of any assessment having been made of Mr. McKay's capacity to manage property. She is only aware of assessments being made about his capacity to live on his own. In terms of his mental capacity, she deposed as follows:

(a) She does not believe her father is incapable;

(b) A physician's consult note made August 11, 2023, in relation to Mr. McKay's hospital admission on August 10th, observed that he had a urinary tract infection, which may have led to him being "more confused than normal;" and

(c) The August 2023 geriatric consult note references Mr. McKay's worsening cognition. But while there was evidence of a moderate stage of mixed dementia, references were only made to short-term memory, wandering, and frailty. No mention was made of managing property. And while Mr. McKay was deemed to be a danger to himself if he moved home, no indication was given that he was incapable of managing his finances.

[ 29 ] Mr. McKay swore an affidavit dated October 9, 2025 in the related application. He filed it in response to Ms. Licursi's motion to remove Ms. McKay as his litigation guardian in that proceeding. A copy of the affidavit was filed in response to the motion now before the court as well.

[ 30 ] Mr. McKay deposed, amongst other things, that:

(a) He is not incapable of understanding the legal issues raised in the application;

(b) He did not want Ms. McKay to be his litigation guardian;

(c) He has the mental capacity to provide and understand legal instructions to his legal counsel and to make informed decisions about the legal proceedings; and

(d) He understands the issues in the proceeding; the potential outcomes; the roles of his lawyer, the court, and opposing counsel; and his right to make decisions regarding strategy and settlement.

[ 31 ] Mr. McKay denied that he required a capacity assessment.

The Positions of the Parties

[ 32 ] Ms. McKay obviously takes the position that there should be a capacity assessment. Mr. McKay, she says, is in a vulnerable position. She has a concern that Ms. Licursi has taken advantage of that vulnerable position to improperly access his financial investments and to arrange for the transfer of his personal residence.

[ 33 ] In Ms. McKay's view, there is ample evidence in the record to support the conclusion that there is substance to her assertion of incapacity on her father's part. The assessment is relevant to both this proceeding and the related application. Indeed, the proposed assessment is necessary before a resolution of the issues, or at least most of the issues, in this proceeding can be put into effect. Moreover, it will be highly probative of several issues raised in the application.

[ 34 ] Mr. McKay is opposed to the assessment. As I noted, he has filed an affidavit in which he confirms that he has the capacity to manage his property and, more specifically, the court proceedings he is involved in.

[ 35 ] Mr. McKay's counsel submits that Mr. McKay is presumed to have capacity. In light of his affidavit, that presumption is not displaced. His counsel further submits that the only remaining live issue in this proceeding is Ms. Licursi's defamation claim. Mr. McKay is not even involved in that claim. What Ms. McKay is doing, counsel asserts, is attempting to get evidence to use in the application. This action is not the proper forum to do so.

[ 36 ] Finally, Mr. McKay's counsel submits that the assessments sought are wide-reaching. They will be very intrusive to Mr. McKay, who is 92 and physically frail. It is unfair to make him go through that process when there is insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of capacity.

[ 37 ] Ms. Licursi did not take a position on the request for a capacity assessment, though the content of her affidavit sworn September 16, 2025 suggests she does not believe her father lacks capacity to manage property. She opposes the request to stay her motion to remove Ms. McKay as Mr. McKay's litigation guardian in the related application. The basis for that motion is that Ms. McKay is in a conflict, which arises because Mr. McKay is suing her in this action. That conflict exists regardless of Mr. McKay's capacity.

[ 38 ] The Bank of Montreal and Ms. Feldstein each took no position on the motion.

The Governing Principles

[ 39 ] Section 105(2) of the CJA provides as follows:

Where the physical or mental condition of a party to a proceeding is in question, the court, on motion, may order the party to undergo a physical or mental examination by one or more health practitioners.

[ 40 ] Section 105(3) provides that where the question of a party's mental condition is first raised by another party, an order for a mental examination shall not be made unless a two-part threshold his met. First, the allegation of mental incapacity must be relevant to a material issue in the proceeding. Second, there must be good reason to believe that there is substance to the allegation.

[ 41 ] Since 2009, motions judges have frequently cited the decision of Justice Strathy, as he then was, in Abrams v. Abrams, [2008] O.J. No. 5207 (S.C.J.) as a helpful expression of the general principles that govern motions for assessments under s. 105(2) of the CJA, or alternatively, s. 79 of the Substitute Decisions Act,[^3] as well as the factors to be considered when applying those general principles.

[ 42 ] In Abrams, Justice Strathy recognized that an order for a psychological assessment engages the subject's dignity, privacy and legal rights. He made the general observation, at para. 50, that,

In considering whether to order an assessment, whether on motion or on its own initiative, a court must balance the affected party's fundamental rights against the court's duty to protect the vulnerable. The appointment of an assessor to conduct what is essentially a psychiatric examination is a substantial intervention into the privacy and security of the individual.

[ 43 ] I agree that it is appropriate for the court to consider and balance the costs and benefits associated with either compelling or not compelling the requested assessment.

[ 44 ] Justice Strathy suggested, at para. 53 of Abrams, that to determine whether the intrusive nature of a compelled psychological assessment is justified in all the circumstances, the motions judge should have regard to a non-exhaustive list of factors which include:

(i) The threshold requirements of s. 105(3), namely that the subject's capacity is in issue and that there are good reasons to believe the subject lacks capacity;

(ii) The nature and circumstances of the proceedings in which the issue is raised;

(iii) The nature and quality of the evidence before the court as to the person's capacity and vulnerability to exploitation;

(iv) Whether the assessment will be necessary in order to decide the issue(s) before the court;

(v) Whether any harm will be done if an assessment does not take place;

(vi) Whether there is any urgency to the assessment; and

(vii) The wishes of the person sought to be examined, taking into account his or her capacity.

Analysis

[ 45 ] Being candid, this motion is not a close call.

[ 46 ] Mr. McKay is 92 years old. He is extremely frail. He has many health challenges. He lives in a secure memory facility. There is a good reason for that placement. He has memory problems and is at risk of wandering off. In the facility where he lives, he is entirely dependent on others for his safety and care. He has no access to his personal residence or to his other financial assets. He is, in short, in a very vulnerable position.

[ 47 ] Ms. McKay and Ms. Licursi have both made allegations that the other has exploited their father. Inherent in those allegations is the premise that Mr. McKay is vulnerable and at risk of being exploited.

[ 48 ] There is ample evidence that Mr. McKay has significant cognitive deficits. I have mentioned his memory problems. He has also been diagnosed with moderate stage dementia. These facts are not disputed. Only the impact of these facts is in issue. And the best way, perhaps the only way, to resolve the dispute about Mr. McKay's cognitive impairments is for the assessment to be conducted.

[ 49 ] Mr. McKay's capacity is clearly in issue in both the action and the application. His capacity to understand the proceedings, to instruct counsel, and to enter into binding settlement agreements are all in issue. In the application, his testamentary capacity is in issue, as is his capacity to execute valid powers of attorney.

[ 50 ] The proceedings involve issues central to Mr. McKay's interests, including who will make decisions about his personal care and finances for the balance of his life. If he has the capacity to do so, then of course he should be entitled to. If he does not, then the court will have to decide who might be best suited to make those decisions.

[ 51 ] If the assessment does not take place, it will be very difficult to finalize a resolution in this action. And it will be almost impossible to resolve the live issues in the application.

[ 52 ] There is no particular urgency to the assessment. That said, Mr. McKay is 92 and in very poor health. There is an opportunity now to obtain evidence that may not be available to the parties and the court over the long term. Moreover, the parties are basically stuck in limbo right now. The assessment represents a reasonable path forward. In my view, the sooner the assessment is conducted, the better.

[ 53 ] I appreciate that Mr. McKay has filed an affidavit in which he asserts his capacity and his opposition to the assessment. Mr. McKay obviously did not prepare the affidavit on his own. I am not suggesting that his counsel did anything untoward. I simply do not know how accurately Mr. McKay's statements in his affidavit reflect his true status. There is a good deal of evidence to suggest that he does not have the level of cognitive capacity he asserts.

[ 54 ] I am satisfied that Mr. McKay has sufficient assets to cover the cost of the assessment without putting his ability to cover his future care costs at any risk.

[ 55 ] In the result, I order as follows:

(a) Pursuant to s. 105 of the CJA, Mr. McKay is to submit to an assessment of his capacity to instruct counsel, to enter into a binding settlement agreement, to manage property, to commence litigation, to grant or revoke power of attorney documents, and to make a last will and testament;

(b) The assessment is to be completed by Dr. Fiona Menzies at Mr. McKay's place of residence (Abbeylawn Manor);

(d) The cost of the assessment is to be borne by Mr. McKay. Ms. McKay is authorized to access Mr. McKay's funds to pay Dr. Menzies' invoice, as well as to cover the cost of the production of any relevant medical records;

(e) Shirlene McKay is authorized to obtain copies of Mr. McKay's health records from and after February 1, 2022 from any health care practitioners who have provided health care services to him, including but not limited to Lakeridge Health, Ajax Pickering Hospital, and Home and Community Care Support Services; and

(f) The deemed undertaking rule is not to apply to any evidence obtained through the assessment.

[ 56 ] Finally, I will address Ms. McKay's request for a stay of Ms. Licursi's motion to have her removed as their father's litigation guardian in the application.

[ 57 ] I accept Mr. Friedman's assertion that the alleged conflict of interest that grounds Ms. Licursi's motion, exists regardless of Mr. McKay's cognitive capacity. It is certainly problematic that Ms. McKay is being sued by Mr. McKay in this action, while at the same time acting as his litigation guardian in a related proceeding.

[ 58 ] I make three observations.

[ 59 ] First, should Ms. Licursi be successful in removing Ms. McKay as their father's litigation guardian in the application, an issue will immediately arise as to whether Mr. McKay needs a litigation guardian to replace her, or whether he has the capacity to carry on with the proceedings without a litigation guardian. It is unclear who might step into Ms. McKay's shoes, if she is removed as litigation guardian.

[ 60 ] At any rate, the results of the assessment will aid the presiding motions judge in determining whether an alternate litigation guardian is required.

[ 61 ] Second, if it is determined that Mr. McKay lacked the capacity to commence the action which names Ms. McKay as a defendant, that factor may be relevant to the motions judge in assessing whether there really is a conflict. In other words, one possibility is that the motions judge determines that Ms. Licursi is the principal, if not the sole, driver of this action. Mr. McKay may simply have been brought along for the ride. If such a determination is made, it may undermine the assertion of a conflict of interest between Ms. McKay and her father.

[ 62 ] Third, there is no urgency to the hearing of the motion to remove Ms. McKay as her father's litigation guardian.

[ 63 ] In all the circumstances, it makes sense to me that Ms. Licursi's motion be stayed until the outcome of the assessment is known. In the result, the stay is granted. Ms. Licursi may return her motion for a hearing once the assessment report has been delivered.

[ 64 ] No party sought costs of the motion. None are ordered.

Justice C. Boswell

Date: February 17, 2026

[^1]: To be clear, the claim was not drafted by Ms. Licursi's current counsel.

[^2]: According to Ms. Licursi's affidavit, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment is a diagnostic tool used for early detection of dementia symptoms.

[^3]: Section 79 provides that if a person's capacity is in issue in a proceeding under the Substitute Decisions Act and the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is incapable, the court may, on motion or on its own initiative, order that the person be assessed by one or more assessors named in the order, for the purpose of giving an opinion as to the person's capacity.

Licursi v. Bank of Montreal, 2026 ONSC 944

Case Summary