Tag: guardianship

16 Sep

Congratulations Britney!

Doreen So Capacity, Common Law Spouses, Estate Planning, Ethical Issues, Executors and Trustees, General Interest, Guardianship, In the News, News & Events, Online presence, Recently, Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , 0 Comments

 

Our blog has been following Britney Spears’ conservatorship proceeding closely in the recent months.  So far, the #FreeBritney movement has seen significant progress through the appointment of a new lawyer for Britney, and very recently through Jamie Spears’ petition to end the conservatorship.  Even though Britney is still under a conservatorship of property and of person, the iconic popstar surprised the world with her engagement to long-time boyfriend, Sam Asghari.

This fantastic news follows Britney’s stunning court testimony back in June that she wanted to be able to get married and have a baby but that she was told that she could not do so because of the conservatorship.

To celebrate Britney’s engagement, I wanted to share Justice Benotto’s words in Calvert (Litigation Guardian of) v. Calvert, 1997 CanLii 12096, as affirmed by the Court of Appeal in 1998 CanLii 3001, with leave to the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed:

“A person’s right of self-determination is an important philosophical and legal principle. A person can be capable of making a basic decision and not capable of making a complex decision. Dr. Molloy, the director of the Geriatric Research Group and Memory Centre and associate professor of geriatrics at McMaster University, said:

Different aspects of daily living and decision-making are now viewed separately. The ability to manage finances, consent to treatment, stand trial, manage personal care, make personal care or health decisions, all require separate decision- making capabilities and assessments.

[…]

The contract of marriage has been described as the essence of simplicity, not requiring a high degree of intelligence to comprehend: Park, supra, at p. 1427.”

While the foregoing passage may not sound particularly romantic, the notion that marriage is the essence of simplicity seems rather befitting to the intimate decision that was made between Britney and Sam.

Britney is not yet a “freed” woman, but as her song goes,

”All I need is time (is all I need)

A moment that is mine

While I’m in between”.

Thanks for sharing your engagement moment with us Britney! Click here for the video of “I’m Not a Girl, Not Yet a Woman”.

Doreen So

17 Aug

Considerations for Determining the Validity of Powers of Attorney and Appointing Guardians for Property and Personal Care

Sanaya Mistry Capacity, Estate & Trust, Estate Litigation, Guardianship, Litigation, Power of Attorney Tags: , , , , , 0 Comments

In yesterday’s blog, I discussed the recent decision in Rudin-Brown et al v. Brown, 2021 ONSC 3366, focusing on the court’s decision in respect of the admissibility and weight given to the audio recordings of Carolyn Brown’s telephone conversations.

In today’s blog, I discuss the factors considered by the court in (i) determining that the 2016 powers of attorney were invalid, and (ii) declaring Carolyn’s 2009 power of attorney for property to be operative, and (iii) appointing Jeanne and Missy as Carolyn’s co-guardians of the person.

The court applied the factors outlined in  Royal Trust Corporation of Canada v. Saunders,  [2006] OJ No 2291, to determine whether or not Carolyn’s 2016 powers of attorney were executed under suspicious circumstances. Particularly, the court considered the following:

  1. The extent of physical and mental impairment of the grantor around the time the powers of attorney were signed;
  2. Whether the powers of attorney in question constitutes a significant change from the former powers of attorney;
  3. The factual circumstances surrounding the execution of the powers of attorney; and
  4. Whether any grantee was instrumental in the preparation of the powers of attorney.

Note, the consideration of “whether the will in question generally seems to make testamentary sense” does not apply to powers of attorney.

The court noted that, among other things, (i) there was evidence that Carolyn was having memory issues at the time the powers of attorney were signed, (ii) after visiting two law firms without success, Gordon downloaded forms for powers of attorney and some will templates from the internet, and (iii) one of the witnesses to the powers of attorney testified that Carolyn seemed “vaguely puzzled” the day she witnessed Carolyn’s signature and also stated that Carolyn said that Gordon had told her to sign the powers of attorney.

The court concluded that the powers of attorney were executed under suspicious circumstances in respect of capacity and undue influence. The court also concluded that Gordon failed to prove that Carolyn had capacity to execute the powers of attorney and declared the powers of attorney to be invalid. In addition, the court found that Gordon “failed to show that Carolyn signed the powers of attorney as a result of her own “full, free and informed thought” and has failed to rebut the presumption of undue influence arising from his and Carolyn’s relationship” and therefore concluded that “even if Carolyn had the capacity to sign one or both powers of attorney, they are not valid due to undue influence.”

In respect of appointing guardians of property and personal care for Carolyn, the court did not solely rely on Carolyn’s 2009 powers of attorney, but rather entered into a detailed analysis to determine who would be appointed as Carolyn’s guardians. As noted by Justice H. J. Williams,

“In appointing a guardian for property, the court shall consider whether the proposed guardian is the attorney under a continuing power of attorney, the incapable person’s current wishes and the closeness of the applicant’s relationship to the incapable person. Where there is an ongoing valid power of attorney, cases in Ontario and elsewhere have held that the court must first determine whether there is strong evidence of misconduct or neglect on the part of the attorney before the court should ignore the wishes of the donor.”

The court did “not hesitate to find that, in accordance with Carolyn’s 2009 power of attorney for property, Jeanne should be Carolyn’s guardian for property and that Carter should be the alternative attorney.” The court noted that in Carolyn’s 2009 power of attorney for personal care, Carolyn had named Gordon and Missy as her attorneys for personal care. While the court was satisfied that Missy would be able to fulfill the duties of guardian of the person, the court was not satisfied that Gordon would be able to do so for several reasons, some of which are outlined below:

  1. “A guardian must make decisions that are in the incapable person’s best interests”, which Gordon had failed to do consistently for Carolyn.
  2. “A guardian must seek to foster regular personal contact between the incapable person and supportive family members and friends” and Gordon failed to foster Carolyn’s relationships with Missy or Jeanne.
  3. “Gordon did not consult anyone other than Carolyn in preparing his guardianship plan.”
  4. Gordon intended to “discontinue a companion service for Carolyn that had been recommended for her and that she had been receiving and apparently enjoying.” Although Gordon said that “Carolyn does not remember the visits and is unhappy with how much they cost”, the court found that “it is more likely that Gordon was unhappy about the cost.”
  5. The court was also concerned by the fact that Gordon had failed to follow court orders. He failed to comply with Justice Kershman’s “order to stop recording Carolyn’s conversations.” It is important to note that the court found that “it was evident from Gordon’s evidence that he felt justified in ignoring a court order if he did not agree with it.”

In summary, the court concluded that “it is in Carolyn’s best interests for Missy and Jeanne to be jointly appointed as Carolyn’s full guardians of the person.”

Thank you for reading.

Sanaya Mistry

 

16 Aug

Are Audio Recordings Admissible?

Sanaya Mistry Guardianship, Hull on Estate and Succession Planning, Hull on Estates, Litigation, Podcasts Tags: , , , , , 0 Comments

In the recent decision of Rudin-Brown et al v. Brown, 2021 ONSC 3366, Justice H. J. Williams discusses the admissibility of audio recordings.

This case involves Carolyn Brown, who is 91 years old, Gordon Brown (Carolyn’s son who lives with her), Christina (“Missy”) Rudin-Brown (Carolyn’s daughter) and Jeanne Brown (Carolyn’s sister-in-law). Around 2008, Missy noticed Carolyn was having some memory problems which became more obvious around 2012. Gordon maintains that other than occasional memory lapses, Carolyn was fine until June 2017 when her memory declined suddenly and noticeably.

In September 2016, Carolyn signed powers of attorney appointing Gordon as her attorney for property and personal care. The 2016 powers of attorney replaced her 2009 powers of attorney which appointed Jeanne as her attorney for property, and Missy and Gordon as her attorneys for personal care. Carolyn also signed a new will in September 2016 appointing Gordon as the executor and the beneficiary of the residue of her estate, replacing her 2009 Will which appointed Jeanne as the executor and divided the residue of her estate equally among Gordon, Missy and Zachary Brown (the son of Carolyn’s late daughter, Sandra).

There were two competing applications before the court for the guardianship of Carolyn – one was brought by Missy and Jeanne and the other by Gordon. These applications were consolidated by Justice Kershman and a trial was ordered.

Although there were a few issues dealt with in this trial, for the purposes of this blog, I will focus on the court’s decision on the issue of whether the recordings of Carolyn’s conversations made by Gordon were admissible and if so, how they may be used as evidence.

Gordon sought to introduce into evidence 15 recordings of Carolyn’s telephone conversations he made in 2017. Also, Missy and Jeanne tendered one of Gordon’s recordings and an excerpt from another. In deciding whether these recordings were admissible, the court considered many factors including the origin of the recordings, whether Carolyn knew and fully approved of these recordings, as well as the probative value and prejudicial effect of admitting these recordings into evidence.

Among other things, Justice H. J. Williams clearly noted that “the manner in which evidence is obtained, no matter how improper or illegal, is not an impediment to its admission at common law”. It was important for the court to consider and weigh the prejudicial effect of the evidence against the probative value. Specially, the court noted that:

“The court nonetheless maintains a general exclusionary discretion to exclude otherwise admissible evidence if the prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value. Evidence may be excluded under this cost-benefit analysis if its probative value is overborne by its prejudicial effect, if it involves an inordinate amount of time to present the evidence that is not commensurate with its value, or if it is misleading in that its effect on the trier of fact is out of proportion to its reliability as probative material.”

The court found Missy’s side of the recorded conversations to be more probative than prejudicial and the conversations between Gordon and Carolyn to be highly probative and therefore admitted. The court had concerns regarding Carolyn’s side of the recorded conversations, particularly because Carolyn was not able to testify. The court discussed the fact that Gordon only produced the recordings he thought were relevant as well as considered whether Carolyn’s side of the conversations truly represented Carolyn’s views and state of mind.

Importantly, the court did not accept Gordon’s evidence that Carolyn knew he was recording her and that she had authorized him to do so. The court noted that during a conversation, Carolyn did not want to speak about something with “you know who around”, referring to Gordon. If she had known that all her conversations were being recorded, Gordon being around would have been irrelevant. As a result, the court found that “Carolyn did not agree to have her conversations recorded, or, if she did, she did not appreciate what she was agreeing to.”

Interestingly, the court noted that although “surreptitious audio and video recordings should be strongly discouraged by the courts” because they foster distrust and have a toxic effect on future relationships, if the recordings and the evidence that flowed from them were excluded in this case, the court would be “left to decide the case based on a record [the court knows] to be incomplete.”

On the issue of the audio recordings, Justice H. J. Williams “with some reluctance, concluded that the recordings are admissible” and the court “will place little weight on Carolyn’s side of the conversations.”

For a more in-depth discussion on this case and admissibility of audio recordings, please listen to last week’s podcast on Hull on Estates.

Thank you for reading.

Sanaya Mistry

15 Jul

What kind of Evidence is needed in an Uncontested Guardianship Application?

Rebecca Rauws Guardianship Tags: , , , , , , , , , , 0 Comments

Guardianship litigation can be messy and upsetting to those involved in such proceedings, particularly when there are multiple family members fighting over who should act as guardian.

It is also possible for a guardianship application to be brought on an uncontested basis, meaning that no one is opposing the appointment of the proposed guardian. That being said, given that the appointment of a guardian is a serious restriction on a person’s liberty, the courts do not take guardianship appointments lightly, and still have strict requirements for evidence, even in uncontested guardianships.

Pursuant to s. 22(1) of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 (the “SDA”), and s. 55(1) of the SDA, the court may appoint a guardian of property and/or personal care for a person who is incapable of managing property and/or personal care if, as a result of that incapacity it is necessary for decisions to be made on his or her behalf by a person authorized to do so.

Least Restrictive Course of Action

Sections 22(3) and 55(2) of the SDA provide an important restriction on the court’s ability to appoint a guardian, requiring that a court not appoint a guardian if it is satisfied that the need for decisions to be made will be met by an alternative course of action that is less restrictive of the person’s decision-making rights than the appointment of a guardian.

In particular, if a person has made a power of attorney for property or personal care naming the individual(s) who they wish to make decisions on their behalf in the event of their incapacity, the court may be reluctant to appoint a guardian and override the person’s own choice of a substitute decision-maker. Accordingly, a guardianship application should include evidence as to whether the alleged incapable person has executed powers of attorney, and what efforts the applicant has made to determine whether powers of attorney exist.

It is also important to remember that even if a person is incapable of managing their property or personal care, he or she may still be capable of making a power of attorney in this regard. Allowing a person to name their own substitute decision maker will of course be less restrictive of his or her decision-making rights than the court imposing a guardian on him or her. Accordingly, a person’s capacity to make powers of attorney should always be considered in the context of a guardianship application, and evidence in this regard should be provided to the court.

Furthermore, if a person is capable of naming his or her own attorney by executing powers of attorney, it may be possible to avoid the costs of a guardianship application, which can be significant.

A Finding of Incapacity is Required

There is also a statutory requirement in s. 58(1) of the SDA that the court make a finding of incapacity in order to appoint a guardian. The court will require evidence in support of a finding of incapacity. Most frequently, this will take the form of a capacity assessment by a trained capacity assessor.

Sometimes applicants are hesitant to obtain a capacity assessment of an alleged incapable person, either due to the cost of the assessment, fear of upsetting the person, or some other reason. While these concerns are understandable, it is important that the court be provided with evidence sufficient to allow it to make the finding of incapacity. Otherwise, it will not be able to appoint a guardian. The cost of the capacity assessment will almost certainly be less than the cost of bringing a guardianship application, only to be unsuccessful when the court is unwilling to appoint a guardian without adequate evidence to satisfy it as to incapacity.

A capacity assessment is also useful as it may reveal that an alleged incapable person does have some level of capacity. As noted above, a person may be capable of executing a power of attorney, even if he or she is incapable of managing his or her own property or personal care. In that case, a guardianship application may be able to be avoided altogether.

Thanks for reading,

Rebecca Rauws

 

These other blog posts may also be of interest to you:

08 Jul

OPGT as Temporary Guardian: The Public Guardian and Trustee v. Willis

Doreen So General Interest, In the News, Litigation Tags: , , , , , 0 Comments

I blogged on the Ontario Public Guardian and Trustee’s Guardianship Investigations Unit, and the OPGT power to bring an application for a temporary guardianship under certain circumstances earlier this week.  In The Public Guardian and Trustee v. Willis et al, 2020 ONSC 3660, the OPGT brought an application for Andrew Willis to pass his accounts with respect to his management of his mother’s Ruth Irene Willis’ property, and for an order that the OPGT be appointed as Mrs. Willis’ temporary guardian of property which would replace Andrew Willis as Mrs. Willis’ POA.

Mrs. Willis suffers from moderate to severe dementia and she lives in MacKenzie Place Nursing Home.  Mrs. Willis is a widow and Andrew is her only living child.  Mrs. Willis’ only asset is her home in Richmond Hill.  There are four mortgages registered against the home, which total $3.35M.  However, according to the last appraisal, the home was only estimated to be worth $2.8M after various renovations are complete.  The extent of the mortgages and Andrew’s role in arranging them, and as a personal guarantor in the event of Mrs. Willis’ default, was the basis for the OPGT’s accounting request.

What led to the OPGT to seek to replace Andrew as Mrs. Willis’ substitute decision maker was serious enough to convince the Court:

  • Andrew was found to be consumed by the home renovations when Mrs. Willis’ basic living expenses at the nursing home were left unpaid. The Court was particularly concerned that,

“Andrew does not do what he says he will do. He made many promises to MacKenzie Place to pay his mother’s arrears but did not. There are still arrears owing of $15,000. Andrew has not made his mother’s needs a priority. As a result, his mother is living in a ward with other residents in a facility which has experienced COVID-19 cases and with minimal services. Mrs. Willis’ quality of life must be improved.”

  • Willis also owes unpaid taxes to the Canada Revenue Agency. Her only bank account was found to have been used for Andrew’s personal expenses, such as his Granite Club fees, groceries, gas, alcohol, hockey equipment and his child support payments before the account was frozen by RBC.
  • Despite Andrew’s efforts in listing the property for sale, the only offer that Andrew had received was less than the total mortgages.
  • Andrew had also failed to make an application for survivor’s pension to increase Mrs. Willis’ monthly income.

The Court ultimately gave Andrew another 1.5 months to sell the house as Mrs. Willis’ attorney for property before the OPGT takes over regardless of whether the home has sold.  If you are interested in learning more about Willis, click here for Rebecca Rauws’ blog on the accounting aspects of this case.

Thanks for reading!

Doreen So

06 Jul

Investigating Britney’s Allegations in Ontario: the OPGT Investigations Unit

Doreen So General Interest, In the News, Litigation, Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , 0 Comments

Britney Spears’ recent statement to the Court on the abuses of her conservatorship has stunned the world.  Spears spoke of being abused and traumatized by her conservators.  Spears gave examples of being forced to do a concert tour against her wishes and under threat of breach of contract; and of being prevented from marrying and having more children of her own.

Spears’ father, who is at the center of this controversy as one of Spears’ conservators for the last 13 years, has filed his own petition for the Court to investigate the allegations in Spears’ statement.  Spears’ father has also expressed criticism over Spears’ conservator of person care, Jodi Montgomery, to which Ms. Montgomery has made the following statement according to Variety,

“…conservatorships in California are subject to the strictest laws in the nation to protect against any potential abuses, including a licensing requirement for all professional fiduciaries. Ms. Montgomery is a licensed private professional fiduciary who, unlike family members who serve as conservators, is required to follow a Code of Ethics…Private professional fiduciaries often serve in cases as a neutral decision-maker when there are complex family dynamics, as in this case…

Because Ms. Montgomery does not have any power or authority over the conservatorship of the estate, every expenditure made by Ms. Montgomery for Britney has had to be first approved by Jamie Spears as the conservator of the estate…Practically speaking, since everything costs money, no expenditures can happen without going through Mr. Spears and Mr. Spears approving them.”

There is similar provision in Ontario for how guardians of property are required to work with the guardians of person.  Section 32(1.2) of the Ontario Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 provides that, “A guardian shall manage a person’s property in a manner consistent with decisions concerning the person’s personal care that are made by the person who has authority to make those decisions.”

File Stack and Magnifying Glass

The Ontario Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 also imposes a positive duty on the Public Guardian and Trustee (“OPGT“) to investigate “any allegation that a person is incapable of managing property or personal care and that serious adverse effects are occurring or may occur as a result” (see sections 27 and 62 of the Act).  According to the OPGT,

“With respect to finances, “serious adverse effects” includes “loss of a significant part of one’s property or failure to provide the necessities of life for oneself or dependents”. Incapacity may, for example, lead a person to give large sums of money away to strangers or to face loss of their home for failure to pay taxes. An incapable person may face starvation or eviction if they cannot look after paying rent or buying food.

With respect to personal welfare, “serious adverse effects” includes “serious illness or injury, or deprivation of liberty and personal security”. Incapacity may, for example, result in a person being unable to remove themselves from a very dangerous situation or to take steps to stop physical or sexual abuse.

[…]

Throughout the investigation, the investigator tries to facilitate solutions that will serve to protect the person without the need for a formal court process. Respect for the dignity of the person and objectivity about the circumstances are paramount considerations in every investigation.”

If a formal court process is found to be necessary, the OPGT will make an application to the Court for a temporary guardianship, and the OPGT can also apply to make the temporary guardianship permanent.  The OPGT is a branch of the Ontario Ministry of Attorney General, and they are meant to provide Ontarians with protective safeguards.  While this specific investigative process is not technically meant to terminate an existing guardianship, it can temporarily or even permanently place the OPGT in charge as guardian of property and person.

Thanks for reading!

Doreen So

05 Jul

Terminating Guardianships: Zheng v. Zheng, 2012 ONSC 3045

Doreen So General Interest, In the News, Litigation Tags: , , , , , 0 Comments

Britney Spears has been the subject of worldwide discussion for most of her life.  The attention on Spears is once again at its height after Spears gave evidence in Court to contest and lay bare the abuses that she has suffered in the course of her 13-year conservatorship. You can read a slightly edited transcript of Spears’ 24-minute statement here.

Spears has been under a conservatorship ordered by the Los Angeles Superior Court since 2008.  The order was made following a number of publicly scandalous events such as the time when Spears was photographed driving with her baby on her lap, and the time when she was photographed shaving her own head.  Spears’ father, Jamie Spears, and a lawyer were named as her conservators which gave them the authority to make decisions about Spears’ property and health.  Spears’ conservatorship was routinely back before the Court and extensions of the arrangement were granted throughout its 13-year history.  A full timeline can be found here.

Recently, in 2019, Jamie Spears sought to extend the conservatorship across multiple states so that he would be similarly authorized to deal with Spears and her property in Louisiana, Hawaii, and Florida.  That same year, Jamie Spears stepped down as the primary conservator after criticisms from Spears’ 14-year old son.  In 2020, Spears sought to remove Jamie Spears as one of her conservators all together.  Fast forward to now, Spears tells Los Angeles probate Judge Brenda Penny that she didn’t know she could petition to end the conservatorship, and that she wanted it to end without being evaluatedDays later, on June 30th, an old application to remove Jamie Spears was dismissed and a wealth management company, Bessemer Trust, was appointed to act as a co-conservator with Jamie Spears, although Spears is not precluded from bringing new applications in the future.

Here in Ontario, our version of a conservatorship is known as a guardianship under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992.  A petition to terminate a guardianship can be brought by motion under section 28 of the Act.  This was done in one instance by Y. Zheng in Zheng v. ZhengZheng v. Zheng, 2012 ONSC 3045, is a Division Court decision by Justice Wilton-Siegel which granted Zheng leave to appeal an order that she be assessed as a part of her motion to terminate her guardianship.

In Zheng, Zheng was found to be incapable of managing property and personal care in 2007 and Zheng’s brother became appointed as her guardian.  When Zheng applied to terminate the guardianship in 2012, Zheng submitted four current assessments, all of which found Zheng to be capable.  The assessments were done by a qualified assessor under the Act, a staff psychiatrist at CAMH, and an in-home occupational therapist.  The psychiatrist, in particular, had found that Zheng is currently capable with respect to treatment of her psychiatric condition, which was diagnosed as a psychotic disorder due to a head injury.

Zheng’s brother opposed the termination.  Zheng’s brother had the assessments reviewed by the same neuro-psychologist who assessed Zheng in his 2007 guardianship application and concerns were raised about the sufficiency of these new assessments.  Thereafter, Zheng retained her own neuro-psychologist to do conduct the same review, and Zheng’s neuro-psychologist came to the opposite conclusion in Zheng’s support.  Given the conflicting review, Zheng’s brother brought a motion for Zheng to undergo a further assessment by an assessor of his choice. This was ordered by Justice B. O’Marra, and leave to appeal this order was granted by Justice Wilton-Siegel.  Unfortunately for us, there does not appear to be any further reported decisions in this matter and I do not know if the assessment appeal or the broader motion to terminate was pursued further.

At the end of the day, I hope Spears’ conservatorship will be resolved to Spears’ satisfaction.  It may very well be that an evaluation of some sort will be required on Spears’ part but, like Zheng, perhaps Spears’ evaluations can be done on her own terms.

Thanks for reading!

Doreen So

22 Apr

What is the Purpose of Section 3 Counsel Under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992?

Rebecca Rauws Capacity Tags: , , , , , , , , , , 0 Comments

Pursuant to section 3 of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 (the “SDA”), if there is a proceeding under the SDA where a person’s capacity is in issue, but they do not have legal representation, the court may direct that the Public Guardian and Trustee (the “PGT”) arrange for legal representation for the person. The person will be deemed to have capacity to instruct counsel. This legal representation is often referred to as “section 3 counsel”.

We have previously blogged about the role of section 3 counsel (for instance, here and here). Section 3 counsel has been described as a safeguard that protects the dignity, privacy, and legal rights of a person who is alleged to be incapable.

Section 3 counsel plays a very important role in proceedings dealing with a person’s capacity, as they allow the person whose capacity, and possibly their rights and liberties, are at issue, to have a voice before the court.

In Singh v Tolton, 2021 ONSC 2528, there was a proceeding relating to the validity of powers of attorney executed by Rajinder Kaur Singh. The PGT proposed that the court consider appointing section 3 counsel for Rajinder. One of Rajinder’s children also requested that section 3 counsel be appointed. One of her other children, Anney, took the position that section 3 counsel was not necessary and raised a concern with the expense of appointing counsel, which cost would be borne by Rajinder.

The court concluded that this was an appropriate situation for the appointment of section 3 counsel. In coming to this conclusion, the court considered the purpose of the SDA, which is to protect the vulnerable. As noted by Justice Strathy, as he then was, in Abrams v Abrams, [2008] O.J. No. 5207, proceedings under the SDA do not seek to balance the interests of the litigants, “but the interests of the person alleged to be incapable as against the interest and duty of the state to protect the vulnerable.” Section 3 is just one of the provisions of the SDA that demonstrate the care that must be taken to protect the dignity, privacy, and legal rights of the individual.

The court in Singh v Tolton also noted that the material before it disclosed a family at odds regarding Rajinder’s personal care. In a situation such as this, there may be a concern that the wishes or best interests of the person whose capacity is in issue will be lost amidst the fighting family members. Section 3 counsel can serve a crucial function in these types of circumstances, by sharing the person’s wishes and instructions with the court.

Thanks for reading,

Rebecca Rauws

 

You may also enjoy these other blog posts:

15 Mar

Model Orders for the Estates List in the Toronto Region!  

Sanaya Mistry Capacity, Estate & Trust, Estate Litigation, Guardianship, Litigation, Passing of Accounts, Power of Attorney, Support After Death, Trustees, Wills Tags: , , , , , , , , 0 Comments

The Consolidated Practice Direction Concerning the Estates List in the Toronto Region was established for the hearing of certain proceedings involving estate, trust and capacity law, applying to matters on the Estates List in the Toronto Region.

As of March 9, 2021, Part VII (Contested Matters – Estates) of this practice direction was amended to make reference to model orders prepared by the Estate List Users’ Committee.

Generally, parties are expected to take the time and care to prepare proposed orders giving directions for consideration by the court. If the parties are unable to agree upon an order giving directions and a contested motion for directions is required, each party must file a copy of the draft order giving directions it is seeking with its motion materials.

 

In addition to providing requirements for what orders giving directions should address, where applicable, this practice direction now includes the following model orders:

  1. Order Giving Directions – Appointment of Section 3 Counsel
  2. Order Giving Directions – Power of Attorney/Guardianship Disputes
  3. Order Giving Directions – Will Challenge
  4. Order Giving Directions – Dependant’s Support
  5. Order Giving Directions – Passing of Accounts

 

As noted in the practice direction, the preparation of draft orders for consideration by the court will greatly expedite the issuance of orders.  Where the relevant model orders have been approved by the Estate List Users’ Committee, a copy of the draft order showing all variations sought from the model order must be filed.

The addition of model orders can greatly benefit the Estates List in the Toronto Region. Among other things, these model orders provide a baseline for all parties, such that it can significantly reduce drafting time and potential disagreements on wording among parties, which in turn can increase efficiency and reduce costs.

Many thanks to the Estate List Users’ Committee for their time and efforts in preparing these model orders!

Thank you for reading.

 

Sanaya Mistry

03 Mar

Bad Vibrations:  When a Guardianship Is Suspect

Ian Hull General Interest, In the News Tags: , , , , , , 0 Comments

Amazon Films has recently released a very dark new film called “I Care A Lot”, starring Rosamund Pike and Peter Dinklage. It’s the story of a crooked legal guardian who drains the savings of her elderly wards and meets her match when a woman she tries to swindle turns out to be more than she first appears.

It’s not an instant classic and it’s total fiction, but it got us thinking about real-life scenarios where a manipulative guardian may be taking advantage of someone and what can be done. We were instantly reminded of the saga of Beach Boys legend, and “Inventor of California,” Brian Wilson.

In May of this year, it will be 55 years since the release of the solid gold classic, Pet Sounds. A testament to the genius of Brian Wilson, Pet Sounds paved the way for other classic records like Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. But a grueling creative and recording process and an abundance of recreational drugs saw Wilson suffer a nervous breakdown in 1965 and he wouldn’t tour with the band again until 1983. Wilson began suffering auditory hallucinations in mid-1965 which persisted throughout his life; he also became increasingly paranoid and anti-social, leading to a disintegration of relations between him and his bandmates, culminating in the famous episode where he refused to get out of bed for two years.

In an effort to assist Wilson with his myriad of physical and psychological issues, Wilson’s family enlisted the services of California psychotherapist Dr. Eugene Landy – And a dark story took a darker turn. For the next nine or ten years, Landy exploited and manipulated Wilson – entering into business contracts worth 25% of future record earnings, while also administering psychotropic drugs, moving into Wilson’s Bel Air estate, supervising his every move, and limiting any contact with the outside world. According to this Diane Sawyer interview from October 10, 1991, Landy was billing Wilson up to one million dollars a year, including $25,000 a month for “vitamins.”

It took nine lawsuits and several years for Wilson to be released from Landy’s “care,” and Wilson has been doing much better over the last few decades, but we still wondered: What if Wilson lived in Ontario and didn’t have any family, or Diane Sawyers, trying to fight for his freedom? What if Landy or the unscrupulous guardian in I Care A Lot were operating in Ontario?

Enter the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (the “PGT”).

While any concerns of physical or mental abuse should immediately be brought to the attention of local authorities as soon as possible, the PGT also has significant investigative and enforcement powers under the Substitute Decisions Act. Where financial concerns are present, the PGT has investigative powers under section 27 and where the integrity of the person is at issue, section 62.

Both sections recognize that “serious illness or injury, or deprivation of liberty or personal security, are serious adverse effects” and the PGT shall investigate. The PGT is provided extensive powers that include entry without a warrant, assistance of the police, as well as bringing emergency applications before the court to intervene as a temporary guardian.

So while Brian Wilson (and more recently Britney Spears) made headlines, there are strong police and government mechanisms in place to protect vulnerable people from abuse and exploitation. But the one thing that Wilson (and Ms. Spears) had, was some kind of connection to people. Isolation from family, friends, or community, is one of the most dangerous risks to vulnerable people.

Anyone can report a concern, either to the police, or to the PGT directly.

Thanks for reading,

Ian Hull and Daniel Enright

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR BLOG

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
 

CONNECT WITH US

TRY HULL E-STATE PLANNER SOFTWARE

Hull e-State Planner is a comprehensive estate planning software designed to make the estate planning process simple, efficient and client friendly.

Try it here!

CATEGORIES

ARCHIVES

TWITTER WIDGET