The court upheld Grace Chui Wong’s 1987 will, rejected three later handwritten notes as invalid testamentary documents, and adjourned the vacant possession application.
The court granted a trustee leave to apply under the Patients Property Act after medical evidence suggested the trust beneficiary could not manage his finances.
The court dismissed an appeal from a master who found implied waiver of solicitor-client privilege and allowed disclosure and a non-sworn interview of former solicitors.
Implied waiver of privilege
Examination under supreme court civil rules rule 7-5
Preconditions for compelled testimony
Standard of review for master's interlocutory orders
The motion judge did not err in principle in ordering a mental examination under s.105(2); given prior orders and expert reports there were reasonable grounds to suspect disability and insufficient current medical evidence to appoint a litigation guardian, and the appellate court must defer to the motion judge's discretionary decision absent palpable or overriding error.
Appeal from a committee appointment under the Patients Property Act dismissed. The Court upheld the use of a petition hearing, refused fresh evidence, and confirmed Jeffrey Simons as committee.
The motion judge's unchallenged finding that the husband is competent, based on two assessments by qualified capacity assessors and counsel's representations, is entitled to deference; that finding required dismissal of the wife's requests for disclosure, cross-examination and Substitute Decisions Act orders, justified dismissal of the claims against the children, and supported immediate partition and sale of the matrimonial home; the appeal is therefore dismissed.
The court declared Christophoros Kartsonas incapable of managing his financial affairs under the Patients Property Act, but made no declaration about personal care.
Court applied a two-part test: (1) executor must be unable to perform duties due to age, infirmity or illness; and (2) a primary beneficiary's interest must be at risk. The court found the first branch satisfied (executor showed limited understanding and reliance on third parties) but the second branch not satisfied because the executor is the sole residuary beneficiary and his personal interest is the only one at risk; on balance the court concluded he retained sufficient capacity to instruct counsel and dismissed the removal application.