Timothy M. Fleming

Two cross-applications were brought regarding the property of an incapable person.

The attorneys for property sought the court's direction on whether to honour requests for money from the incapable person's son.

The son and his wife sought to remove the attorneys and force a passing of accounts.

The court dismissed the attorneys' application, holding that the court cannot give directions on how attorneys should exercise their discretion.

The court also dismissed the son's application, finding no strong and compelling evidence of misconduct or neglect to justify removing the attorneys, and noting the failure to obtain leave for a passing of accounts.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision dismissing its application for a declaration that the respondent tenant's installation of an ATM violated the permitted use clause of their commercial lease.

The lease restricted the premises to use as a fast-food restaurant.

The application judge found the ATM was a business tool to keep costs low and did not change the purpose of the premises.

The Court of Appeal applied the deferential standard of review for contractual interpretation established in Sattva, finding no error of law or mixed fact and law, and dismissed the appeal.