S. Jones

In the context of CCAA proceedings for a land lease community, the senior secured lender brought a motion to appoint a receiver.

The CCAA stay of proceedings was expiring, DIP financing was exhausted, and no viable restructuring plan or purchaser had emerged.

The court found it just and convenient to appoint a receiver to stabilize the community, ensure continuation of essential water and sewage services, and facilitate a credit bid by the secured lender.

A separate unopposed motion to lift the stay to allow repossession of unused modular homes was also granted.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) brought an application concerning the property of a woman with developmental delays, initially seeking to terminate her friend's power of attorney and be appointed guardian of property.

The PGT later sought court approval of a Trust Agreement to manage her settlement funds.

The court refused to approve the Trust Agreement, finding that the woman had the requisite capacity to grant the power of attorney to her friend.

The court emphasized the low threshold for capacity to grant a power of attorney and the importance of autonomy, and accepted the friend's informal passing of accounts.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) applied to displace an individual as guardian for property of an elderly person and to compel the individual to repay substantial funds transferred from the elderly person.

The elderly person, suffering from cognitive impairment, had appointed the individual as her attorney for property.

Shortly after, the elderly person transferred significant sums to the attorney and another individual.

The court found that the attorney failed to rebut the presumption of a resulting trust for the funds she received and breached her fiduciary duty by not acting in the elderly person's best interests.

The PGT's application was allowed, terminating the attorney's power of attorney, appointing the PGT as permanent guardian, and ordering the attorney to repay over $334,000.

The court heard urgent applications and a cross-application for the appointment of a guardian for personal care and property for an incapacitated individual.

The primary applicant sought guardianship to challenge a doctor's life support plan at the Consent and Capacity Board, while the cross-applicant (spouse) intended to consent to the plan if appointed.

The court dismissed both applications for guardianship of personal care, finding that the need for decisions could be met by a less restrictive alternative, specifically by allowing the Consent and Capacity Board to determine the appropriate substitute decision-maker.

The court emphasized that the Board is the expert body for such life-and-death decisions.

Applications for guardianship of property were adjourned.

The primary applicant was ordered to pay partial indemnity costs to the spouse and a statutory fee to the Public Guardian and Trustee, partly due to the inappropriate conduct of counsel and the lack of admissible evidence.

In an aviation insurance dispute arising from an aircraft crash, the defendants sought production of documents from the Transportation Safety Board (TSB) under Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and provisions of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act.

The court considered whether statutory privileges over cockpit voice recordings, statements to investigators, and representations made regarding draft TSB reports could be overridden.

Applying the statutory balancing tests, the court ordered production of the cockpit voice recorder recordings and certain factual documents where the public interest in the proper administration of justice outweighed the privilege.

Statements given to investigators for aviation safety purposes were largely protected, and representations regarding the TSB draft report remained absolutely privileged.

The flight data recorder information was ordered produced as it was not covered by statutory privilege.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order dismissing a motion to transfer an application to the Divisional Court.

The underlying application sought a declaration that the Minimum Maintenance Standards regulation was ultra vires and invalid, arising from a motor vehicle accident tort action against a municipality.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that under section 8 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, the motion judge had the discretion to retain jurisdiction over the application rather than transferring it, and that this discretion was exercised reasonably to facilitate judicial economy.

The appellants appealed a decision striking out their Amended Notice of Application against a notary public for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The appellants alleged they unknowingly signed powers of attorney revoking their interest in foreign property, which were notarized by the respondent notary in their absence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding it was not plain and obvious that the notary owed no duty of care to the appellants when she affixed her signature, knowing the legal effect it would carry in the foreign jurisdiction.