Wendy Lynn Griesdorf

The applicant, Linda Bridgewater, sought an order interpreting the residuary clause of Ronald Douglas Penrose's will, which bequeathed the balance of his estate to a non-existent entity, 'Guide Dogs of Canada.' The court applied the 'armchair rule' to determine the testator's subjective intention, considering extrinsic evidence such as the testator's prior donations to and a brochure from the Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB).

The court found that the testator intended the bequest to go to the CNIB, dismissing alternative interpretations proposed by other guide dog charities.

Following a motion to vary an order concerning their mother's care and estate, the parties made submissions on costs.

The court found that the moving parties (two of the siblings) engaged in unreasonable litigation conduct that unnecessarily lengthened and delayed the proceedings.

Costs were awarded to the Public Guardian and Trustee, Section 3 counsel, BMO Trust Company, and the responding siblings.

To sanction the moving parties' conduct while recognizing the estate's ability to pay, the court ordered the costs to be paid from the mother's estate, with 50% of those costs to be set off against the moving parties' future inheritance.

The moving parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

Section 3 counsel brought a motion to vary a previous order regarding the guardianship of an elderly mother, after the daughter appointed as guardian of personal care indicated she would seek outside employment and hire full-time professional caregivers unless compensated.

The court found that the daughter's actions escalated the litigation and were money-driven, but recognized that the mother was thriving under her daughter's full-time personal care.

To ensure the mother's best interests were met, the court varied the order to appoint the daughter and one of her brothers as joint guardians of personal care, and ordered that the daughter be compensated for her caregiving services.

Section 3 counsel brought a motion to vary a previous order regarding the guardianship of an incapable person, after the appointed guardian of personal care (the incapable person's daughter) indicated she would seek outside employment and hire professional caregivers instead of providing full-time personal care herself without compensation, contrary to the guardianship plan she had filed.

The court found that the daughter's actions escalated the litigation and that she put her own interests ahead of her mother's.

However, because the mother was thriving under the daughter's full-time care, and the daughter threatened to cease providing care if not appointed guardian and compensated, the court varied its previous order to allow for the daughter's compensation.

To mitigate conflict of interest and ensure the mother's best interests, the court appointed the daughter and one of her brothers as joint guardians of personal care.

Costs decision following applications under the Substitute Decisions Act concerning the care and property of an elderly mother.

The litigation involved two groups of siblings disputing issues including compensation for caregiving.

Most issues settled before the hearing, leaving only a compensation issue which was decided in the earlier merits decision.

The court determined responsibility for legal costs, including those of court-appointed counsel under s. 3 of the Substitute Decisions Act.

The court ordered that certain preparation and hearing costs of s. 3 counsel and one group of siblings be paid by the unsuccessful parties, while other costs were borne by each party individually or paid from the incapable person's property.

Two competing applications were brought by siblings regarding the guardianship and care of their 88-year-old mother, who suffers from Alzheimer's dementia.

The court appointed the daughter, who had been living with and caring for the mother, as guardian of personal care, and a trust company as guardian of property.

The primary dispute concerned the daughter's claim for $133,000 in compensation for past caregiving and $53,620 annually going forward.

The court awarded a lump sum of $25,000 for past care and $500 per month for future care management, emphasizing the mother's best interests and the equitable recognition of the daughter's contributions.