Wright v. Wright

Wright v. Wright

Majority held that the court had jurisdiction, under the Mental Incompetency Act read with Judicature rules, to dispense with personal service where personal service would be harmful, and that the medical and other affidavits then before the judge were sufficient to establish mental incompetency beyond reasonable doubt; accordingly the declaration of incompetency and the reference to the Master were valid, although parts of the Master’s allowance findings were remitted for reconsideration.

Citation
[1951] SCR 728
Parties
Appellant: Douglas G.H. Wright; Respondent: Laura May Wright; Respondent: Guaranty Trust Company of Canada
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 June 1951
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario (special Leave Granted)
Outcome
Appeal in respect of the order of December 8, 1950 (declaration of mental incompetency and dispensing with service) dismissed; appeal in respect of the order of December 22, 1950 (confirmation of Master's report) allowed in part and remitted for reconsideration of specified paragraphs.
Legal Topics
Mental Incompetency, Service of Process, Appointment of Committee/guardian, Maintenance of Dependents, Standard of Proof, Rules of Court Interpretation
Source Language
English
Civil Law Mental Health Law Procedural Law Trusts and Estates Mental Incompetency Service of Process Appointment of Committee/guardian Maintenance of Dependents +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Douglas G.H. Wright

Appellant

Laura May Wright

Respondent

Guaranty Trust Company of Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario (special Leave Granted)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court had jurisdiction to dispense with personal service of notice in an application to declare a person mentally incompetent
  2. 2 Whether the evidence established mental incompetency beyond reasonable doubt
  3. 3 Whether the Master had sufficient evidence to authorize annual allowances and encroachment on corpus of estate

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that the court had jurisdiction, under the Mental Incompetency Act read with Judicature rules, to dispense with personal service where personal service would be harmful, and that the medical and other affidavits then before the judge were sufficient to establish mental incompetency beyond reasonable doubt; accordingly the declaration of incompetency and the reference to the Master were valid, although parts of the Master’s allowance findings were remitted for reconsideration.

Court Disposition

Appeal in respect of the order of December 8, 1950 (declaration of mental incompetency and dispensing with service) dismissed; appeal in respect of the order of December 22, 1950 (confirmation of Master's report) allowed in part and remitted for reconsideration of specified paragraphs.

Orders

  • Order of December 8, 1950 declaring appellant a mentally incompetent person and dispensing with personal service of the notice of motion upheld.
  • Order of December 22, 1950 confirming the Master’s report set aside in part; paragraphs 5 and 8(a), 8(b) and 8(d) of the Master’s report (dependence finding and allowances for wife and mother-in-law and authorization to encroach on corpus) remitted to the Master for further consideration.