If you are interested in registering for a workshop, please contact Krista Grace at Krista.jessacher@probatelaw.ca.

This entry was created by Krista Grace Jessacher of adultguardianship.ca and probatelaw.ca. Her email address is Krista.Jessacher@probatelaw.ca.

BRITISH COLUMBIA 2001

If you want to read the judgment you can find it on the internet at the CanLII website which is a repository of judgments and an excellent website to have bookmarked if you are interested in reading the law.

This entry was created by Krista Grace Jessacher of adultguardianship.ca and probatelaw.ca. Her email address is Krista.Jessacher@probatelaw.ca.

MANITOBA 2000

BRITISH COLUMBIA 1991

In the matter of The Public Trustee of British Columbia and Macht, 1991 CanLII 519, (British Columbia Court of Appeal)

The Public Trustee was appealing an order of the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeal regarding the appointment of a committee without a bond pursuant to the Patients‘ Property Act, R.S.B.C. 1979 Ch 313.

The Order in question held that the committee provide an accounting of the home sale proceeds and also that the home itself not be sold without an order of the Court.

The family was not requesting the posting of a bond. At issue before the Court of Appeal was whether as a matter of law the Supreme Court should have ordered the posting of a bond by the committee.

The Public Trustee sought the bond be in the amount of the value of the patient’s personal property, with the amount of the bond to be increased once the patient’s home was sold.

There was no issue that the Estate of the patient could afford the premium cost of the bond, and still cover the living expenses of the patient.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the area of law and commented that generally a bond should be in place in committee cases to protect the estate assets and that it was proper for the Public Trustee to pursue the bond issue.

SASKATCHEWAN 2000

The chambers decision of the Queen’s Bench Court was upheld with a reference to the standard of review for such a discretionary order.

Costs to be paid by the appellant personally, along with an order that accounts be passed.

CANADA

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including of the press and other media of communication;

(c ) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

?

This entry was created by Krista Grace Jessacher of adultguardianship.ca and probatelaw.ca. Her email address is Krista.Jessacher@probatelaw.ca.

SASKATCHEWAN 2003

In the matter of Re Application Pursuant to THE ADULT GUARDIANSHIP AND CO-DECISION-MAKING ACT, S.S. 2000, c. A-5.3, AS AMENDED, 2003 SKQB 61 (Sask. Q.B.) the Court surveyed the issue of bonds for securing estates.

The Public Trustee took the position that a bond was necessary if the applicants were to be appointed property guardians by the Court.

In reviewing the applicable legislation, the Court reiterated the principle of preserving the financial estate of the adult and the limited discretion of the Saskatchewan Court to dispense with a bond.  The Court encouraged early communication between applicants and the Public Trustee.

The Court granted the order for personal decision-making and adjourned the application for property guardianship.

MANITOBA 2001

In the matter of Yaremko v. Manitoba (Director of Psychiatric Services), 2001 MBQB 85, the second husband of Frances Yaremko was appointed Committee of her property (with bond) and personal care, replacing the Public Trustee pursuant to section 62(1) of The Mental Health Act.

Ms. Yaremko and her husband had been married for more than 40 years and it was determined that he was most suitable to be her Committee. 

The reasons for judgment reviewed the financial assets owned jointly by Ms. Yaremko and her husband, and also the cost of administration by the Public Trustee.?

Conclusion: The Court ordered a Committeeship with bond and reviewed the ability of family members to obtain access to Frances Yaremko for visits. 

Further to my last post, perhaps a recent home movie of the resident’s opinion on the subject of management of her affairs could be submitted at the Court hearing, rather than the associated cost of a video conference appointment on the day of the hearing.?