Law360 Canada ( June 6, 2025, 2:39 PM EDT) -- Appeal by appellant against an order granting respondents’ application for partition and sale of their parents’ properties. The case involved a legal dispute between siblings over the sale and possession of two properties located in Ontario. The respondents acted as litigation guardians for their parents, Regine and Douglas. They sought to sell a jointly owned property, the Galt Property, and obtain a writ of possession for another property, the Bristol Property, solely owned by Regine. The purpose of these actions was to fund their parents’ continued care. The appellant, Luypaert, who was their brother, opposed these actions. The proceedings began when the respondents approached the appellant about selling the Galt Property and vacating the Bristol Property, but he refused. Consequently, the respondents applied for the partition or sale of the Galt Property and a writ of possession for the Bristol Property. The appellant failed to provide the required documents and records as ordered by the court, and he was self-represented at the application hearing. The application judge refused to grant an adjournment and did not accept the appellant’s affidavit evidence, proceeding with the hearing. The application judge found that the respondents were entitled to the relief sought, including the sale of the Galt Property and a writ of possession for the Bristol Property. The judge directed that the proceeds from the sale be paid into court pending further order, ensuring the highest value for the sale and protecting the appellant’s rights regarding the distribution of proceeds. However, the appellant appealed the decision on four grounds: procedural unfairness; incorrect application of legal principles; error in granting the writ of possession; and, error in accepting the powers of attorney. He argued that it was an error for the application judge not to fully consider his claim that he was the beneficial owner of the entire interest in the Galt Property, and that although his parents appeared on title, they were only bare trustees, and further that the respondents did not bring their application with “clean hands.”...