Thomasina Dumonceau

This is an appeal from a Consent and Capacity Board (CCB) decision that found the appellant, P.P., incapable of managing her property.

P.P. argued that the CCB proceedings were procedurally unfair.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the procedure used by the CCB was indeed procedurally unfair, specifically regarding the granting of an adjournment to the assessor to obtain corroborating evidence and the decision to permit the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) to intervene as a party.

The court noted that the PGT's investigative role under s. 27 of the Substitute Decisions Act was improperly blurred with the voluntary assessment process under s. 16, leading to a lack of transparency and an unfair advantage for the PGT in controlling the hearing.

Emphasizing the high standard of procedural fairness required in cases affecting personal autonomy, the court set aside the CCB's decision.

This decision addresses two motions: one by AIG Insurance Company of Canada for summary judgment against the plaintiff, Neil Doef, regarding a paralysis benefit claim, and another by Hockey Canada seeking leave to withdraw an affidavit and replace it.

The court dismissed AIG's summary judgment motion due to an unjustifiable 42-month delay in bringing it, finding it contrary to the principles of timely access to justice.

Hockey Canada's motion for leave to withdraw the affidavit was also dismissed, as granting it would have prejudiced the plaintiff by denying him the opportunity to cross-examine the affiants before the summary judgment motion, which was subsequently vacated.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against his former real estate solicitor for professional negligence, alleging the solicitor failed to properly advise him regarding a $300,000 gift direction.

The plaintiff also moved to dismiss a counterclaim brought by one of the defendants on the basis that she was an undischarged bankrupt.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding that genuine issues of credibility and the factual context of the transaction required a trial.

However, the court granted the motion to dismiss the counterclaim, concluding that the defendant lacked the legal capacity to commence the action as an undischarged bankrupt, and the proceeds claimed did not constitute after-acquired property.