3 total
Temporary parenting restrictions lifted after safety concerns no longer justified continued supervision.
On a family law motion, the moving party sought to set aside temporary orders that had restricted him to supervised parenting time and had shifted decision-making authority and primary residence to the responding party.
The court held that the temporary safety concerns underlying those orders had materially changed, relying in particular on child protection communications indicating no ongoing involvement regarding the parties’ children and permitting unsupervised caregiving in the moving party’s household.
The court found the temporary orders did not establish a new status quo deserving deference where the original rationale had dissipated.
The motion was granted, the temporary orders were vacated, and the prior equal parenting regime was reinstated with a short transition period of interim unsupervised parenting time.
Attorney removed for misconduct after transferring incapable person’s assets into joint ownership.
Application concerning the validity of competing powers of attorney for an elderly incapable person and the conduct of family members acting as attorneys for property.
The court determined that a 2011 power of attorney appointing three children jointly was valid and revoked an earlier 2010 power appointing one child as sole attorney.
However, due to misconduct including transferring the incapable person’s assets into joint accounts and joint tenancy, that child was removed as attorney for property.
The court declined to appoint the Public Guardian and Trustee or a financial institution as guardian, finding the remaining attorneys capable of acting.
The court also resolved disputes on passing of accounts and awarded costs relating to a Mareva injunction and the proceedings.
Court appoints Public Guardian and Trustee as litigation guardian for unrepresented respondent.
A condominium corporation brought an application seeking various forms of relief against a unit owner whose alleged conduct raised safety concerns.
The court first had to determine whether the respondent was under a disability within the meaning of Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, requiring the appointment of a litigation guardian.
Despite a prior order directing a mental capacity assessment, no assessment had been completed and the respondent failed to appear or participate in the proceedings.
Based on affidavit evidence describing erratic behaviour and non‑compliance with court orders, the court concluded that the respondent met the criteria for a party under disability.
The Public Guardian and Trustee was appointed as litigation guardian and the application was adjourned to allow time for the guardian to prepare.
