Hillton v Bruno, 2016 ABQB 451

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Hillton v Bruno, 2016 ABQB 451 Date: 20160817 Docket: 1503 11095 Registry: Edmonton Between: Patricia Hillton and Yolande Virga Applicants - and - Maria Bruno and Gilda Keizer Respondents _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Honourable Madam Justice J.B. Veit _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The application of Ms. Hillton and Ms. Virga for a variation to this court’s order of April 21, 2016 is denied; there has been no material change of circumstance.

The applicants say that the visits with their father and brother respectively have gone well; if that were so, the adequacy of the previous order would merely be established. This was not the kind of order which anticipated that if things went well, visits with the father could be expanded in duration, in frequency or in participation; rather, the April decision established a format for visits and there has been no important change since then.

Although the applicant says that the visits with her father have gone well, the affidavit in support of her application points to difficulties which have arisen since the last order and uses those difficulties as a springboard to request a variation of the April 21 order. However, the difficulties which she has identified arise out of health emergencies. Those are incidental happenings and are not material in the sense that they do not go to the core of the April 21 order; that order must be interpreted as setting a

schedule that will be followed where possible. [ 2 ] The application for an order directing the respondents to advise the applicants if Mr. Bruno is taken to a hospital or moved from his residence into a long term care facility and to order any hospital or care facility to allow the applicants and their spouses to visit Mr. Bruno in the facility is denied. With respect to the request for an order for notice of any move, Mr. Bruno’s personal representative will do what is in Mr. Bruno’s best interests; given the acrimonious disputes over access during the past two years, and the existing

evidence about Mr. Bruno’s dementia, it is premature to attempt to determine what would be in Mr. Bruno’s best interests at the time of any future move. With respect to the order on a hospital or care facility, an order is clearly premature and is not, in any event, the kind of order that would be given without notice to the facility concerned. [ 3 ] If the parties are not agreed on costs, I may be spoken to within 30 days of the release of this decision. Heard on the 12 th day of August, 2016. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 17 th day of August, 2016. J.B. Veit J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Françoise H.

Belzil, Biamonte Cairo & Shortreed LLP for the Applicants Raj S. Deol, Ritzen Olivieri LLP for the Respondents