Powers of Attorney


Ensuring Access to a Loved One

In our rapidly aging society, powers of attorney for personal care and property are now widespread and their importance is recognized by the general public. A family member or friend can also apply to the court to be appointed guardian of the person or the person's property if powers of attorney have not been executed. However, family members often find themselves in a situation where a loved one is being legally cared for by a family member, or friend of the incapable person, who they no longer like or trust.

A common complaint that I hear is from family members or friends who feel excluded from participating in or influencing decisions regarding the incapable person, particularly when it comes to personal care.

However, under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, which generally governs the rights of an incapable person, any person, with leave, can seek directions from the court on any question arising under a power of attorney (the same is true regarding a court appointed guardian). Pursuant to sections 39 and 68 of the Act, the court may give such directions as it considers to be for the benefit of the incapable person and consistent with the Act.

Section 66(1) of the Act sets out the duties of an attorney for personal care (section 32 is the corresponding section for an attorney for property). In general, the attorney is required to exercise his or her duties and powers with diligence and in good faith.

Section 66(6) also states that an attorney must foster regular personal contact between the incapable person and supportive family members and friends. Moreover, section 66(7) states that the attorney shall consult with supportive family members and friends who are in regular contact with the incapable person, as well as the incapable person's caregivers.

The requirements of section 66, coupled with the ability to seek directions from the court, offer family members and friends the means to ensure that they remain involved with their loved ones and are not simply sidelined. Proceeding to court is always expensive. However, where there is genuine concern and frustration that the incapable person is not being properly cared for and/or his or her finances are being squandered, recourse can be had to the courts.


Removing an Attorney for Property: When, Why & How

This is a PDF document. Click here to view.


The Limits of a Power of Attorney

In McMullen v. McMullen [2006] B.C.J. No 2900, an 86 year old widower commenced an application against two of his three daughters, who held his power of attorney. The application was to set aside the transfer of a 99% interest in the father's condominium property to the husbands of his two daughters. The daughters, in turn, brought an application for an order requiring their father to submit to a psychiatric assessment.

According to the medical evidence before the court, the father had some medical problems, but no documented cognitive problems. At worst, he suffered from depression. However, the two daughters alleged that their father's spending habits had changed and his investments had been depleted. The daughters claimed that their father was sending money to a new female acquaintance in the United States. The family contacted medical professionals and legal authorities with concerns that their father was being financially abused, but to no avail.

When the daughters confronted their father with respect to his worsening financial situation, he became angry and denied he was being financially exploited. He asked his one daughter to stop monitoring his bank account though she did not accede to his request, as she considered it her duty under the power of attorney. The two daughters then transferred the father's condominium property to preserve his only remaining asset and provide for his future care.

However, the daughters did not immediately register the transfer of the condominium property, as they thought it would cause emotional distress. It was not until a year later that the daughters finally registered the transfer of the condominium without telling their father or providing consideration. The father commenced the application when he ultimately discovered the transfer.

The court allowed the application by the father and the condominium transfer was declared null and void. While the daughters acted in what they considered to be in their father's best interests, there was nevertheless no evidence to show that the father was incapable of managing his financial affairs. The daughters had therefore breached their duties as attorneys by acting contrary to their father's intentions. The court dismissed the daughters' application, as the father was not required to submit to a psychiatric assessment where his mental capacity was not an issue.

The case holds that even when a family fears that an elderly parent is being financially exploited, but mental incompetency is not an issue, a power of attorney does not give the family carte blanche to do what they think is in the best interests of that parent. A power of attorney for property has its limits even in the most egregious situations.