Background
The decision in Whitmore v. Belec, 2026 ONSC 2140 is a useful reminder that guardianship is not simply about being appointed by the Court. It is about meeting an ongoing legal obligation to act in the incapable person’s best interests in a practical way.
In this case, Lucie was an incapable adult with developmental and physical limitations. Her sister, Sylvie, had been appointed as guardian of property and personal care in 2021. Over time, concerns arose about how that role was being carried out and the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee brought a motion seeking to remove Sylvie and to be appointed in her place.
The Court’s Concerns
The Court focused on a simple question: was the guardian continuing to act in Lucie’s best interests? Based on the evidence, the answer was no.
A significant concern was Lucie’s living situation. She had resided in a group home for many years, where she benefited from stability and consistent support. Her sister removed her from that environment without putting an appropriate alternative in place. As a result, Lucie remained in a hospital mental health unit for an extended period. The Court found that this arrangement did not adequately meet her needs and failed to provide a meaningful quality of life.
The Court also looked at how the guardian dealt with care providers. Those interactions were described as difficult and had a direct impact on Lucie’s access to services and stable housing. When combined with the failure to properly manage available funds and meet basic obligations like passing accounts, the Court was satisfied that the guardian was no longer fulfilling her role as required.
The Court’s Decision
Under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, a guardian is required to act carefully, honestly, and in good faith, with the incapable person’s best interests guiding every decision.
The Court also emphasized that a guardianship plan is more than a formality. It represents the foundation of the appointment. Where a guardian significantly departs from that plan without a clear and reasonable explanation, it may suggest that they are no longer suitable to continue in the role.
The Court removed the sister as guardian of both property and personal care. The Public Guardian and Trustee was appointed in her place.
Key Takeaway
Being appointed as a guardian is not enough on its own. The Court will look closely at how the role is carried out in practice. If decisions do not support the incapable person’s care, stability, and well‑being, the Court may intervene and replace the guardian, even where the guardian is a family member.
Thank you for reading!
By Yalda Mostafaie