Patient was 89-year-old man with advanced dementia and number of medical conditions requiring medical and nursing attention. Patient required long term care, but due to shortage of space in long-term care facilities, he was required to stay in hospital that provided care for chronically ill patients. Patient’s wife was his attorney for personal care and property and his litigation guardian. Disputes arose about care provided to patient, and hospital imposed restrictions on wife’s attendance due to her conduct. Wife installed video cameras so she could see what was happening over Internet, but some hospital staff covered cameras since they had not consented to being recorded, and hospital ultimately had its own video monitoring system installed. Wife commenced application for directions and injunctive relief, and brought motion for interlocutory injunction allowing her unrestricted access to patient and requiring hospital staff not to interfere with or obstruct video cameras, which was dismissed on terms. Parties made submissions on costs. Wife was ordered to pay hospital costs on substantial indemnity scale in amount of $15,000. Wife made inappropriate attempt to bring motion ex parte and could easily have given hospital notice. Procedure adopted by wife was ill conceived and unjustified. Wife had spent over $42,000 pursuing matter while hospital spent over $16,000 responding.
Leopold Edwin Siberg v. Bruyère Continuing Care Inc. (2018), 2018 CarswellOnt 17935, 2018 ONSC 6460, C. MacLeod J. (Ont. S.C.J.); additional reasons (2018), 2018 CarswellOnt 11289, 2018 ONSC 4235, Calum MacLeod J. (Ont. S.C.J.).