Tag: appointing guardians
When parents consider who should be the guardian of their minor-age children in the event they both were to die, they are probably thinking in terms of who will assume parenting responsibilities. In Ontario, however, there is an important distinction between the custodial guardian and the guardian of property, the latter being the person who will make financial decisions for those children until they reach the age of majority. One person can fulfill both roles or parents can break the responsibilities apart and assign guardians for each.
Let’s explore the second form of guardianship first.
In Ontario, subsection 47 (2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act describes a guardian of the property as someone “responsible for the care and management of the property of the child.”
Their duties include making trustee investments and investing the child’s money as required by the management plan approved by the court. If there is a large amount of money involved, the guardian may be required to pass the accounts before the court at fixed intervals, usually from one to five years.
Detailed records, or accounts, must be kept of all transactions carried out on behalf of the children.
Guardians of property may be paid for their work, following the fee scale set out in Ontario Regulation 159/00. It states they are entitled to three per cent on capital and income receipts, three per cent on capital and income disbursements and three–fifths of one per cent on the annual average value of the assets as a care and management fee.
The court can review the accounts and adjust the amount of compensation given, and, if required, demand that some or all of these funds be repaid.
With the financial responsibilities involved in being a guardian of property, it is easy to see why parents should select someone comfortable with handling money for this role.
When selecting a custodial guardian to assume day-to-day parenting duties, most people look to family members. That often works well, especially if the person lives close by and has children of their own. But don’t be afraid to look beyond your circle of relatives. In some circumstances, a family friend might be the better choice. Just as there are no perfect parents, there are no perfect guardians, but your children will have to live with the choice you have made in the event of your untimely death.
There are a number of factors to consider with any guardian choice, such as geography. School-age children may not appreciate being uprooted from friends and schoolmates if the custodial parent lives in another community or province.
The age and health of the custodial guardian are important as well, as you want someone who has the energy to take on the myriad of tasks involved in child-rearing. For that reason, someone who is nearing retirement might not be a wise choice as a custodial guardian.
Parents also have to think about the attitudes and values they are trying to instill in their children. You want to find a custodial guardian who lives by similar standards as yours, to ensure your children are brought up in a manner in which you approve.
Finances should be a factor in your decision-making. Even if a will provides funding for the children’s needs, the custodial guardian’s expenses will go up, so you won’t want to select someone who is already financially strained.
For both guardian roles, you will want to be sure to discuss the issue thoroughly with the people in question before appointing them in your will. It is a statistical long-shot that their services will be required, but make sure they are comfortable taking on those duties if they are ever required to fulfill those roles.
One final point: review your guardianship appointments on a regular basis. Everyone’s personal circumstances change, and the person who agreed to be guardian 10 years ago may be unfit or unwilling to assume that role now.
Stay safe – and have a great day,
The Court of Appeal of British Columbia (the “BCCA”) recently dealt with an appeal from an Order of the British Columbia Supreme Court which declined to exercise jurisdiction by staying a petition for guardianship of an incapable person. This Order also included various terms relating to the person’s care and property.
This appeal dealt with the guardianship of Ms. Dingwall, the mother of both the Appellant and the Respondent.
At all material times, Ms. Dingwall and the Appellant lived in Alberta and the Respondent resided in British Columbia. Between 2010 and 2014, Ms. Dingwall resided for various periods in both Alberta and British Columbia. At the time of this appeal, Ms. Dingwall lived in a care home in British Columbia. She suffered from advanced dementia.
The Alberta Proceedings
On February 5, 2015, the Appellant sought an Order from the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench appointing him as Ms. Dingwall’s guardian and trustee. The Respondent opposed this Order and in September, 2015 filed an Application to move the proceedings to British Columbia. This Application was never heard and the matter continued to be heard in Alberta.
On July 7, 2016, the Court granted the Order sought by the Appellant which appointed him as Ms. Dingwall’s guardian and provided him with the authority to make decisions with respect to Ms. Dingwall’s health care, the carrying on of any legal proceeding not related primarily to Ms. Dingwall’s financial matters and Ms. Dingwall’s personal and real property in Alberta.
The British Columbia Proceedings
A few weeks prior to the Alberta hearing, the Respondent filed a petition with the Supreme Court of British Columbia seeking a declaration that Ms. Dingwall was incapable of managing herself or her affairs due to mental infirmity and an Order appointing her as committee of Ms. Dingwall’s person and Estate. The Appellant opposed the Respondent’s petition by arguing that the Supreme Court of British Columbia lacked jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia asserted jurisdiction because Ms. Dingwall was at the time of the decision, ordinarily resident in British Columbia and because there was a “real and substantial” connection to British Columbia. The Court found that, in this case, both Alberta and British Columbia had jurisdiction.
Despite British Columbia having jurisdiction in this case, the Court found that the Alberta forum was nonetheless more appropriate and cited the following factors in favour of its decision:
- The similarity of the proceedings;
- Alberta having issued a final order; and
- The Respondent having attorned to Alberta’s jurisdiction by opposing the Appellant’s petition.
As a result, the Court stayed the Respondent’s petition but also made several Orders respecting Ms. Dingwall’s care and property. The parties’ costs on a “solicitor client basis” were to be payable by Ms. Dingwall’s Estate.
The Appellant appealed the following Orders made by the Court, other than the stay of the Respondent’s proceedings:
- issuing an Order on the matter after declining to exercise jurisdiction respecting it;
- finding the Court had territorial competence over the matter; and
- awarding solicitor-client costs payable from Ms. Dingwall’s Estate.
The BCCA Decision
The BCCA allowed the appeal and found that the lower Court erred in making Orders concerning the very matter over which it had declined to exercise jurisdiction. The Court noted that a decision to decline jurisdiction over a particular matter renders a judge incapable of deciding issues or making orders as to the substance of that matter.
As a result, the Court set aside the Orders respecting Ms. Dingwall’s care and property. In light of that finding, the Court of Appeal found it unnecessary to deal with the issue of whether British Columbia had territorial competence over this matter, given that the lower Court declined to exercise jurisdiction, in any event.
The Court of Appeal found that the Appellant was entitled to special costs payable by Ms. Dingwall’s Estate and that the Respondent was not entitled to costs.
The full decision can be found here: Pellerin v. Dingwall, 2018 BCCA 110
Thanks for reading.