Endnotes 2017-03-03T21:54:50+00:00

[1]Law Commission of Ontario, A Framework for the Law as It Affects Older Adults: Advancing Substantive Equality for Older Persons through Law, Policy and Practice (Toronto: April 2012), online: http://www.lco-cdo.org/en/older-adults-final-report [LCO, Framework for the Law as It Affects Older Adults]; Law Commission of Ontario, A Framework for the Law as It Affects Persons with Disabilities: Advancing Substantive Equality for Persons with Disabilities through Law, Policy and Practice (Toronto: September 2012), online: http://www.lco-cdo.org/en/disabilities-final-report  [LCO, Framework for the Law as It Affects Persons with Disabilities].

[2] For a brief overview of this law reform process, see Law Commission of Ontario, Legal Capacity, Decision-making and Guardianship: Discussion Paper (Toronto: May 2014), Part I, Ch 1.B, online: http://lco-cdo.org/en/capacity-guardianship-discussion-paper  [LCO, Legal Capacity and Decision-making Discussion Paper].

[3]LCO, Legal Capacity and Decision-making Discussion Paper, note 2.

[4]Law Commission of Ontario, Legal Capacity, Decision-making and Guardianship: Summary of Issues for Consultation (Toronto: June 2014), online: http://www.lco-cdo.org/en/capacity-guardianship-discussion-paper-summary-consultation-issues  [LCO, Summary of Issues].

[5] Health Care Consent Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 2, Schedule A [HCCA].

[6] Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 30 [SDA].

[7] Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.7 [MHA].

[8]The British Columbia Law Institute has carried out substantial work on common law tests of capacity: British Columbia Law Institute, Report on Common-Law Tests of Capacity (Vancouver: September 2013), online: http://www.bcli.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2013-09-24_BCLI_Report_on_Common-Law_Tests_of_Capacity_FINAL.pdf.

[9] Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004, S.O. 2004, c. 3, Schedule A [PHIPA].

[10]The Uniform Law Conference of Canada, together with the Uniform Law Commission, has undertaken a project to develop a uniform act on interjurisdictional recognition of substitute decision-making documents. See http://www.ulcc.ca/images/stories/2014_pdf_en/2014ulcc0013.pdf, item #13.

[11]LCO, Framework for the Law as It Affects Older Adults, note 1; LCO, Framework for the Law as It Affects Persons with Disabilities, note 1.

[12]Advisory Committee on Substitute Decision Making for Mentally Incapable Persons, Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Substitute Decision Making for Mentally Incapable Persons (Toronto: 1987) [Fram Report].

[13] Law Commission of Ontario, Final Report, Capacity and Legal Representation for the Federal RDSP (Toronto: June 2014) [LCO, RDSP Final Report], online: http://www.lco-cdo.org/en/rdsp.

[14] David N. Weisstub, Enquiry on Mental Competency: Final Report (Toronto: Publications Ontario, 1990), 55 [Weisstub Report].

[15]Fram Report, note 12, vii.

[16]Fram Report, note 12, 39-47.

[17]Review of Advocacy for Vulnerable Adults, Terms of Reference, January 1987 in Sean O’Sullivan, You’ve Got a Friend: A Review of Advocacy in Ontario (Toronto: Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, 1987), 121-22.

[18] SDA, note 6, s. 2; HCCA, note 5, s. 4(2).

[19] HCCA, note 5, ss. 10, 40.

[20] SDA, note 6, ss. 32(1), 38.

[21] SDA, note 6, ss. 66(2)-(3).

[22] SDA, note 6, ss. 32(2)-(5).

[23] The LCO has commenced a project on Improving the Last Stages of Life, which will address some of these issues. Information on this project may be found online at http://www.lco-cdo.org/en/last-stages-of-life.

[24] Treatment without consent is permitted in emergencies under s. 25 of the HCCA, while admission to a long-term care facility without consent is permitted in a crisis situation under s. 47 of the HCCA.

[25] LCO, Framework for the Law as It Affects Older Adults, note 1; LCO, Framework for the Law as It Affects Persons with Disabilities, note 1.

[26] Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 13 December 2006, 2515 UNTS 3, GA Res 61/106 (entered into force 3 May 2008, ratified by Canada 11 March 2010) [CRPD].

[27] Kerri Joffe & Edgar-Andre Montigny (ARCH Disability Law Centre), Decisions, Decisions: Promoting and Protecting the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Who are Subject to Guardianship (Toronto: Law Commission of Ontario, January 2014) [Joffe & Montigny], 6, online: http://lco-cdo.org/en/capacity-guardianship-commissioned-paper-arch.

[28] City of Toronto, Toronto Facts: Diversity, online: http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=dbe867b42d853410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD&vgnextchannel=57a12cc817453410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD.

[29] LCO, Framework for the Law as It Affects Persons with Disabilities, note 1, Ch. II.D; LCO, Framework for the Law as It Affects Older Adults, note 1, Ch. III.A.

[30] See, for example, Michael Bach & Lana Kerzner, A New Paradigm for Protecting Autonomy and the Right to Legal Capacity (Toronto: Law Commission of Ontario, October 2010) [Bach & Kerzner, A New Paradigm], 141 and following, online: http://www.lco-cdo.org/en/disabilities-call-for-papers-bach-kerzner;  and Coalition on Alternatives to Guardianship, The Right to Legal Capacity and Supported Decision-making for All, A Brief to the Law Commission of Ontario (Toronto: October 2014) [Coalition on Alternatives to Guardianship, Brief] 30 and following, online: http://communitylivingontario.ca/sites/default/files/Coalition%20Brief%20to%20LCO%20-%20Oct%202014%20-%20final.pdf.

[31] Margaret Isabel Hall, “Mental Capacity in the (Civil) Law: Capacity, Autonomy, and Vulnerability” (2012) 58:1 McGill L. J. 61, 65.

[32] SDA, note 6, s. 78.

[33] MHA, note 7, s.59.

[34] SDA, note 6, ss. 22(3) and 55(2).

[35] SDA, note 6, ss. 32(3), 66(3), (4), and (5); HCCA, note 5, s.21.

[36] A “Ulysses agreement” allows a person creating a power of attorney for personal care to waive rights to challenge a finding of incapacity or to permit the use of force to facilitate treatment. Not surprisingly, the requirements for the creation of a “Ulysses agreement” are stringent: SDA, note 6, s. 50; HCCA, note 5, s. 32(2).

[37] LCO, Framework for the Law as It Affects Older Adults, note 1, 87-88.

[38] A brief discussion of adult protection laws may be found at LCO, Framework for the Law as It Affects Older Adults, note 1, Ch. III.B.5.

[39] Among the aspects of diversity which should be considered in applying the Frameworks, should be included gender identity, reflecting the protections of the Ontario Human Rights Code and the growing understanding of the experiences of individuals related to gender identity and of the discrimination experienced by individuals on this basis.

[40]  HCCA, note 5, s. 1.

[41] Adult Protection and Decision-making Act, S.Y. 2003, c. 21, Sched. A, [Adult Protection and Decision-making Act], s. 4.

[42] Alberta Guardianship and Trusteeship Act, S.A 2008, c. A-4.2, [AGTA], s. 2; The Adult Guardianship and Co-Decision-making Act, S.S. 2000, c. A.5.3, [Adult Guardianship and Co-Decision-making Act], s. 3; Adult Protection and Decision-making Act, note 41, s. 2; Mental Capacity Act 2005, (UK), c. 9, [Mental Capacity Act], s. 1; Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, Bill No. 83 of 2013, Minister for Justice and Equality (July 13, 2012), [Irish Bill 2013], s. 8. The Irish Bill 2013 was reviewed by the Select Committee on Justice on June 17, 2015.

[43] Victorian Law Reform Commission, Guardianship: Final Report (Melbourne, Australia: 2012) [VLRC, Final Report], 78, online: http://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/projects/guardianship-final-report.

[44] Long-Term Care Homes Act 2007, S.O. 2007, c.8, [LTCHA], s. 1.

[45] LCO, Framework for the Law as It Affects Older Adults, note 1, 107.

[46] Policy Horizons Canada, “The Case for Evidence Based Policy”, 2013, online: http://www.horizons.gc.ca/eng/content/case-evidence-based-policy.

[47]Michael Howlett & Jonathan Craft, “Policy Advisory Systems and Evidence-Based Policy: the Location and Content of Evidentiary Policy Advice” in
Shaun P. Young, ed., Evidence Based Policy-making in Canada (Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press, 2013), 28.

[48] An Act to amend the Human Rights Code, S.O. 2006, c. 30, s. 57.

[49] See Andrew Pinto, Report of the Ontario Human Rights Review 2012 (Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2012), online: https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/human_rights/Pinto_human_rights_report_2012-ENG.pdf.

[50] Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 11. [AODA], s. 41.

[51] See, for example, the extended discussion by the Queensland Law Reform Commission, A Review of Queensland’s Guardianship Laws: Report, (Queensland Law Reform Commission: September 2010), [QLRC R67] Volume 1, 264-69, online: http://www.qlrc.qld.gov.au/publications. A very helpful outline of the evolution of these approaches can be found in Kristin Booth Glen, “Changing Paradigms: Mental Capacity, Legal Capacity, Guardianship, and Beyond” (2012) 44 Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 93-169.

[52] Weisstub Report, note 14.

[53] HCCA, note 5, s. 4.

[54] SDA, note 6, s. 2; Capacity Assessment Office, Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, Guidelines for Conducting Assessments of Capacity (Toronto: 2005), [MAG, Guidelines], I.2, online: http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/family/pgt/capacity/2005-06/guide-0505.pdf.

[55] Starson v. Swayze, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 722, 2003 SCC 32, [Starson], para. 80.

[56] CRPD, note 26.

[57] CRPD, note 26, Article 1.

[58] CRPD, note 26.

[59] Nations Treaty Collection, “Status of Treaties: Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities”, [Declaration and Reservation], online:  https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-15&chapter=4&lang=en.

[60] Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, General Comment No. 1 (2014) Article 12: Equal Recognition Before the Law (April 11, 2014), [General Comment], online: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRPD/C/GC/1&Lang=en.

[61] Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “The right to take risks and make mistakes: equal recognition before the law for people with disabilities” (Geneva: OHCHR, 15 May 2014), online: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/LegalEquality.aspx. A helpful resource on the status of General Comments can be found in Conway Blake, “Normative Instruments in International Human Rights Law: Locating the General Comment”, Center for Human Rights and Global Justice Working Paper No. 17 (New York: 2008), online: http://chrgj.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/blake.pdf.

[62] For a discussion of the supported decision-making mechanisms incorporated into legislation in various Canadian jurisdictions, see LCO, Legal Capacity and Decision-making Discussion Paper, note 2, Part Three, Ch I.D.2.

[63] Consultation questionnaire. Excerpts from questionnaires have been edited to remove identifying information and for typographical errors.

[64] SDA, note 6, ss. 33(1), (2), (3).

[65] General Comment, note 60, para 8.

[66] The General Comment (note 60) emphasizes that the right to choose medical treatment must be respected even in crisis situations (para 42). It states that accurate and accessible information must be provided, as well as non-medical options.

[67] LCO, RDSP Final Report, note 13, section III.A.

[68] Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 [Human Rights Code], ss. 11 and 17.

[69] Human Rights Code, note 68, s. 47(2).

[70] See, for example, Ontario Human Rights Commission, Policy on Discrimination and Language (Toronto: June 19, 1996), online: http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-discrimination-and-language.

[71] MAG, Guidelines, note 54, Section III.2 and VII.2.

[72] MAG, Guidelines, note 54, Section VI.

[73] HCCA, note 5, s. 10.

[74] Law Society of Upper Canada, Rules of Professional Conduct, adopted by Convocation June 22, 2000, Section 3.2-9, “Client with Diminished Capacity” online: http://www.lsuc.on.ca/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=2147486159; Law Society of Upper Canada, Paralegal Rules of Conduct, adopted by Convocation March 29, 2007, Rule 3.02 “Client with Diminished Capacity”, online: http://www.lsuc.on.ca/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=2147486158. For a very helpful overview of the law in this area, see ARCH Disability Law Centre, Addressing the Capacity of Parties Before Ontario’s Administrative Tribunals: Promoting Autonomy and Preserving Fairness, December 2009, Chapter One, online: http://www.archdisabilitylaw.ca/addressing-capacity-parties-ontario%E2%80%99s-administrative-tribunals-respecting-autonomy-protecting-fairne.

[75] LCO, RDSP Final Report, note 13.

[76] MHA, note 7, ss. 54-60.

[77] The person must have a guardian under the SDA, but with respect to the power of attorney, the physician must believe “on reasonable grounds” that such a document exists: MHA, note 7, s. 54(6).

[78] MHA, note 7, s. 54(2).

[79] Cancellation of a certificate is issued using form 23, which only requires the patient’s name and identifying information and the physician’s signature: Ontario Ministry of Health, Form 23, Mental Health Act – Notice of Cancellation of Certificate of Incapacity to Manage One’s Property under Section 56 of the Act (Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2013), online: http://www.forms.ssb.gov.on.ca/mbs/ssb/forms/ssbforms.nsf/GetFileAttach/014-6442-41~1/$File/6442-41E.pdf.

[80] MHA, note 7, s. 57(2).

[81] MHA, note 7, s. 54(4).

[82] SDA, note 6, s. 15.

[83] Consent and Capacity Board, Review of Capacity to Manage Property (Form 18), 2, online: www.ccboard.on.ca/english/publications/documents/form18.pdf.

[84] SDA, note 6, s. 6: “A person is incapable of managing property if the person is not able to understand information that is relevant to making a decision in the management of his or her property, or is not able to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a decision or lack of decision.”

[85] See Roy v Furst, [1999] OJ 1490 (SCJ),  a decision by Justice MacLeod, noting the lack of  definition for capacity to manage property in the MHA, turned to the definition in section 6 of the SDA as the basis for her judgment.

[86] This is indicated by the use of binding language (“a physician shall examine” as opposed to “the physician may examine”): MHA, note 7, s. 54(1).

[87] MHA, note 7, s. 59(1).

[88] MHA, note 7, s. 59(2).

[89] MHA, note 7, s. 60(1).

[90] SDA, note 6, s. 16(1).

[91] SDA, note 6, s. 79.

[92] SDA, note 6, s. 1(1). Note that designated Capacity Assessors frequently provide opinions with respect to capacity to, for example, create a power of attorney or make a will, situations in which the SDA does not require a formal Capacity Assessment.

[93] Capacity Assessment, O. Reg. 460/05 [Capacity Assessment Reg], ss. 2(1)(a), 2(2).

[94] MAG, Guidelines, note 54.

[95] Capacity Assessment Reg, note 93, ss. 3(1)-(2).

[96] Capacity Assessment Reg, note 93, s. 3(3).

[97] SDA, note 6, ss. 78(1)-(3).

[98] SDA, note 6, ss. 78(5), 16(4).

[99] SDA, note 6, ss. 16(5)-(6).

[100] SDA, note 6, s. 20.2. Note that persons who are found incapable of managing property and who then fall under a continuing power of attorney do not have this avenue open to them. Nor are there rights of review for a finding of incapacity for personal care. See the discussion in D’Arcy Hiltz & Anita Szigeti, A Guide to Consent and Capacity Law in Ontario, 2013 Edition, (Lexis Nexis: Markham, Ontario, 2012), [Hiltz & Szigeti], 32, 43-44.

[101] Hiltz & Szigeti, note 100, 194. It should be noted that the cost of long-term care is regulated, and may be subsidized.

[102] HCCA, note 5, s. 2.

[103] Evaluators, O. Reg. 104/96, s. 1.

[104] The origins of this form are not documented and recollections differ as to its original development. However, it appears to have been in use from the very beginning of the current regime, and has been widely treated as an “official”: Interview with Judith Wahl, Advocacy Centre for the Elderly.

[105] H. (Re), 2005 CanLII 57737 (ON CCB) states, “Merely asking those five questions and getting (or not getting) answers is not a fair test of a person’s capacity.” See, for example, Starson, note 55, paras 77, 81 (evaluators must displace the presumption of capacity on a balance of probabilities and demonstrate that an individual lacks the ability to appreciate the foreseeable consequences of the decision); Saunders v. Bridgepoint Hospital, 2005 CanLII 47735 (ON SC), [Saunders] para. 121 (procedural fairness requires that evaluators inform individuals about the capacity assessment process on an ongoing basis).

[106] In Koch (Re), Quinn J imported some of the procedural safeguards from the SDA into the admissions context, specifically, the right to be informed of the significance of a finding of incapacity, the right to have counsel or a trusted friend present during the evaluation, the right to refuse the evaluation, and the right to be informed of these rights prior to the evaluation: Koch (Re) (1997), 33 O.R. (3d) 485, 70 A.C.W.S. (3d) 712 (Gen Div) [Koch (Re)]. However, some consider these comments to be obiter and the Board has not always considered itself bound by them: Hiltz & Szigeti, note 100, citing I.L.A. (Re), 2004 CanLII 29716 (ON CCB).

[107] HCCA, note 5, ss. 50(1)-(2).

[108] HCCA, note 5, s. 10.

[109] HCCA, note 5, s. 4(3).

[110] HCCA, note 5, s. 15(1).

[111] HCCA, note 5, s. 15(2).

[112] See for example, College of Audiologists and Speech Language Pathologists, “Obtaining Consent for Services: A Guide for Audiologists and Speech Language Pathologists” (CASLPO, June 2006), online: http://www.caslpo.com/sites/default/uploads/files/GU_EN_Obtaining_Consent_for_Services.pdf [CASLPO, Obtaining Consent]; College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, “Determining Capacity to Consent: Guiding Physicians through Capacity and Consent to Treatment” (CPSO, 2007) Dialogue 32, online: http://www.cpso.on.ca/uploadedFiles/policies/policies/policyitems/Consent.pdf; College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, “Consent to Medical Treatment, Policy 4-05” (January/February 2006), online: http://www.cpso.on.ca/policies/policies/default.aspx?ID=1544 [CPSO, Consent to Medical Treatment]; College of Nurses of Ontario, Practice Guideline: Consent (2009), online: http://www.cno.org/Global/docs/policy/41020_consent.pdf [CNO, Practice Guideline: Consent]‎; College of Dieticians of Ontario, “Guidelines: Health Care Consent Act (HCCA)”, online: http://www.cdo.on.ca/en/pdf/publications/guidelines/hcca.pdf [College of Dieticians, “Guidelines”]; College of Dieticians of Ontario, “The Jurisprudence Handbook for Dietitians in Ontario” (Fall 2012), online: http://www.cdo.on.ca/en/pdf/Publications/…/Jurisprudence%20Handbook.pdf; College of Occupational Therapists of Ontario,  Guide to the Health Care Consent and Substitute Decisions Legislation for Occupational Therapists (1996), online: http://www.coto.org/pdf/hcca_guide.pdf [College of Occupational Therapists of Ontario, Consent]; College of Respiratory Therapists of Ontario, “Responsibilities Under Consent Legislation” (December 2011), online: http://www.crto.on.ca/pdf/PPG/UnderConsent.pdf, [College of Respiratory Therapists, “Responsibilities Under Consent Legislation”]; College of Physiotherapists of Ontario, “Health Care Consent Act: Briefing Note” (2005, updated 2007), online:  http://www.collegept.org/Assets/registrants’guideenglish/briefing%20notes/BNhealthCareConsentAct.pdf; College of Chiropractors of Ontario, “Standard of Practice: Consent” (Amended November 2004), online: http://ccholive.v51.com/site_documents/S-013%20Consent.pdf.

[113] National Initiative for the Care of the Elderly, Tool on Capacity & Consent: Ontario Edition (Toronto: Advocacy Centre for the Elderly, 2003), online:  http://www.nicenet.ca/files/NICE_Capacity_and_Consent_tool.pdf.

[114] MHA, note 7, ss. 38, 59.

[115] HCCA, note 5, s. 32.

[116] Flynn et al v. Flynn, (18 December 2007) 03-66/07 (Ont SCJ), cited in Abrams v. Abrams (2008), 173 A.C.W.S. (3d) 410, 173 A.C.W.S. (3d) 606, (Ont SCJ) [Abrams], para. 50. 

[117] Abrams, note 116, para. 50.

[118] MAG, Guidelines, note 54, 12.

[119] Sarita Verma & Michel Silberfeld, “Approaches to Capacity and Competency: The Canadian View” (1997) 20:1 Int JL & Psychiatry 35, [Verma & Silberfeld] 42.

[120] Henry Olders, “Comprehensive Assessments of Competence: A Psychiatrist’s Perspective” (2011) 5:2 McGill JL & Health 283, [Olders] 285.

[121] Michel Silberfeld and others, “Capacity Assessments for Requests to Restore Legal Competence” (1995) 10:3 International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 191, 196.

[122] See, for example, Koch (Re), note 106, where a husband requested evaluation of his wife’s capacity following the production of a draft separation agreement by his wife’s lawyer. Urbisci v. Urbisci, 2010 ONSC 6130, 67 E.T.R. (3d) 43, also involved a request for assessment in the midst of separation proceedings, when Mrs. Urbisci decided that her husband and daughter were more concerned about her money then her well-being and decided to revoke an existing power of attorney in favour of her husband. Deschamps v. Deschamps (1997), 52 O.T.C. 154, 75 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1130 (Gen Div) [Deschamps], involved a son seeking to be appointed guardian of property for his father as part of an extensive effort to prevent him from re-marrying.

[123] Verma & Silberfeld, note 119, 41.

[124] Olders, note 120, 283 –  284.

[125] V. (Re), 2009 CanLII 13471 (ON CCB).

[126] Jude Bursten, “Mental Health Law in the Community: A rights Protection Framework That Falls Apart?” in Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office, Mental Health and Patients’ Rights in Ontario: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow (Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2003) 69, online: https://ozone.scholarsportal.info/bitstream/1873/13331/1/283377.pdf. During preliminary consultations, some stakeholders raised similar concerns about potential improper use of MHA examinations as a compulsory alternative to SDA assessments. Some commented that this was generally well-intentioned. For example, the costs associated with SDA assessments make them impractical in some circumstances. However, the LCO did not locate any documented instances of this kind of practice.

[127] VLRC, Final Report, note 43, 113.

[128] AGTA, note 42; Alta Reg 219/2009, s. 3(1)(a).

[129] AGTA, note 42; Alta Reg 219/2009, s. 4(2)(a).

[130] Capacity Assessment Office Brochure, online: http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/family/pgt/capacityoffice.asp#pays.

[131] Written submission to the LCO from the Ontario Brain Injury Association, October 2014, 2 [OBIA Submission].

[132] Judith Wahl, Mary Jane Dykeman & Brendan Gray, Health Care Consent and Advance Care Planning in Ontario (Toronto: Law Commission of Ontario, January 2014), [Wahl, Dykeman & Gray], 253-254, online: http://lco-cdo.org/en/capacity-guardianship-commissioned-paper-ace-ddo.

[133] Focus Group, Rights Advisers and Advocates, September 25, 2014.

[134] Written submission to the LCO from Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, October 16, 2014, [CAMH Submission] 3.

[135] See note 105, above.

[136] Jeffrey Cole & Noreen Dawe, Assessing Capacity for Admission to Long-Term Care Homes: A Training Manual for Evaluators (2010, revised 2011), iii, online: http://www.ccac-ont.ca/Upload/central/General/ConsentandCapacityTrainingManual.pdf. It is not clear to which study they are referring, unfortunately.

[137] The Dementia Network of Ottawa, “A Practical Guide to Capacity and Consent Law of Ontario for Health Practitioners Working with People with Alzheimer Disease”, online: http://www.community-networks.ca/uploads/L%20consentlawOttAlzheimers.pdf.

[138] Alexandra Carling-Rowland, “Communication Aid to Capacity Evaluation – CACE: A Communicatively Accessible Capacity Evaluation to Make Admissions Decisions” (2012), online: http://www.aphasia.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Communication-Aid-to-Capacity-Evaluation-CACE.pdf.

[139] In Koch (Re), note 106, Quinn J imported some of the procedural safeguards from the SDA into the admissions context, specifically, the right to be informed of the significance of a finding of incapacity, the right to have counsel or a trusted friend present during the evaluation, the right to refuse the evaluation, and the right to be informed of these rights prior to the evaluation.

[140] Saunders, note 105, para 18.

[141] Wahl, Dykeman & Gray, note 132, 260 – 261.

[142] OBIA Submission, note 131, 2.

[143] Wahl, Dykeman & Gray, note 132, 263-264.

[144] Written submission from the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly, October 17, 2014, [ACE Submission Legal Capacity], 9.

[145] HCCA, note 5, s. 17.

[146] College of Occupational Therapists of Ontario, Consent, note 112, 1.6 and 1.7.

[147] For example, the College of Audiologists and Speech Language Pathologists, provide specific guidance as to the information to be provided to the person found incapable, the necessity of providing the information to the individual in a way that is appropriate to the individual’s capacity, the duty to continue to involve the individual to the extent possible in discussions with the SDM, and the duty to assist the individual with exercising the option to apply to the CCB for a review of the finding: CASLPO, Obtaining Consent, note 112, 12.

[148] For example, College of Respiratory Therapists, “Responsibilities Under Consent Legislation”, note 112, 15; CASLPO, Obtaining Consent, note 112, 12 “The CASLPO member has an obligation to inform the patient/client in a manner appropriate to the patient/client’s capacity”.

[149] See, for example, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Consent to Treatment, note 112, 7; CASLPO, Obtaining Consent, note 112, 12, College of Dieticians, “Guidelines”, note 112, 4. The College of Nurses of Ontario requires members to respond to indications that “the client is uncomfortable with this information” by exploring and clarifying this discomfort and then informing the client of options: CNO, Practice Guideline: Consent, note 112, Appendix B: Advocating for Clients).

[150] For example, neither the College of Physicians and Surgeons Consent to Medical Treatment, note 112, 7 or the College of Nurses of Ontario’s Practice Guideline: Consent, note 112, provides any exceptions with respect to informing the incapable person of the finding and its consequences.

[151] For example, College of Respiratory Therapists, “Responsibilities Under Consent Legislation”, note 112, 15.

[152] College of Dieticians, “Guidelines”, note 112, 4.

[153] College of Respiratory Therapists of Ontario, “Responsibilities under Consent Legislation”, note 112.

[154] College of Physicians and Surgeons, Consent to Medical Treatment, note 112, 7. See also CNO, Practice Guideline: for Consent, note 112, which requires the nurse to use “professional judgment to determine the scope of advocacy services to assist the client in exercising his/her options”.

[155] Written submission to the LCO by the Mental Health Legal Committee, November 28, 2014, [MHLC Submission] 9-10.

[156] HCCA, note 5, s. 4(3).

[157] MAG, Guidelines, note 54, I.2.

[158] AGTA, note 42; Alta Reg 219/2009, s. 3(1)(a).

[159] AGTA, note 42; Alta Reg 219/2009, s. 4(2)(a).

[160] Dr. Samir K. Sinha, Living Longer, Living Well Report Submitted to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care and the Minister Responsible for Seniors on recommendations to Inform a Seniors Strategy for Ontario (December 20, 2012),  131, online: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/common/ministry/publications/reports/seniors_strategy/docs/seniors_strategy_report.pdf.

[161] Canadian Institute for Health Information, Health Care in Canada 2011: A Focus on Seniors and Aging (Ottawa: 2011), online: https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/HCIC_2011_seniors_report_en.pdf.

[162] Department for Constitutional Affairs, Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice (London: TSO, 2007), [COP], 178, online: http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/pls/portallive/docs/1/51771696.PDF.

[163] Mental Capacity Act, note 42, s. 39.

[164] COP, note 162, 184.  

[165] Robert Pettignano, Lisa Bliss & Sylvia Caley, “The health law partnership: a medical-legal partnership strategically designed to provide a coordinated approach to public health legal services, education, advocacy, evaluation, research, and scholarship”, J Leg Med (2014) 57, 69; Margaret Graham Tebo, “Just What the Doctor Ordered: Hospital on-site legal services programs help address legal ills of children” (2001) 87:10 ABA J 28, 28; Elizabeth Tobin Tyler, Poverty, health and law: readings and cases for medical-legal partnership (Durham, N.C: Carolina Academic Press, 2011)  [Tobin Tyler] 71.

[166]  Tobin Tyler, note 165, 84.

[167] Joel Teitelbaum, “Obligation and Opportunity: Medical-Legal Partnership in the Age of Health Reform” (2014) 35:1 7, pages 11, 21.

[168] Tobin Tyler, note 165, 81.

[169] Pro Bono Law Ontario, Medical-Legal Partnerships for Children: Bridging the Justice Gap, [PBLO], online: https://www.pblo.org/volunteer/medical-legal-partnerships-children/.

[170] LawHelpOntario.org, Legal Help for Children: Medical Legal Partnerships, online: https://www.lawhelpontario.org/legal-help-for-children/medical-legal-partnerships/. 

[171] PBLO, note 169.

[172] PBLO, note 169.

[173] Johanna McDonald, “ARCH and the St. Michael’s Hospital Legal Services Program: A Health Justice Initiative”, ARCH Alert: ARCH’s Quarterly Newsletter on Disability and the Law (26 June 2015), [ARCH Alert], online: http://archdisabilitylaw.ca/sites/all/files/ARCH%20Alert%20-%20June%2026%202015%20-%20Text_0.txt.

[174] ARCH Alert, note 173.

[175] Law Society of Upper Canada – Equity Initiatives Department, Report to Convocation: Access to Justice Committee (2011) 14.

[176] Excellent Care for All Act, 2010, S.O. 2010, c. 14, [Excellent Care for All Act] preamble.

[177] Excellent Care for All Act, note 176, s. 12(a)(iv). Amendments have been passed but not yet proclaimed in force to include monitoring and reporting on “patient relations”.

[178] Health Quality Ontario, Annual Report 2013-2014, [HQO, Annual Report 2013-2014], 9, online: http://www.hqontario.ca/About-Us/Annual-Reports.

[179] Health Quality Ontario, Experiencing Integrated Care: Ontarian’s Views of Healthcare Coordination and Communication (2015), 3, online: http://www.hqontario.ca/Portals/0/documents/pr/report-experiencing-integrated-care-1504-en.pdf.

[180] HQO, Annual Report 2013-2014, note 178, 6; Health Quality Ontario website – Primary Care – Primary Care Patient Survey, online: http://www.hqontario.ca/quality-improvement/primary-care/patient-experience-survey.

[181] Health Quality Ontario website – About Us – Patient, Family and Public Advisors Council and Network, online: http://www.hqontario.ca/about-us/patient-and-family-advisors>.

[182] Health Quality Ontario website – Health Links – Webinar Series, online: http://www.hqontario.ca/quality-improvement/health-links/webinar-series.

[183] Excellent Care for All Act, note 176, s. 13.1.

[184] Advocacy Centre for the Elderly, Congregate Living and the Law as it Affects Older Adults, Research Paper for the Law Commission of Ontario (Law Commission of Ontario: August 2009), [ACE, Congregate Living],  online: http://www.lco-cdo.org.en/older adults.

[185] LTCHA, note 44, s.3(1).

[186] LTCHA, note 44, s. 3(3).

[187] ACE, Congregate Living, note 184, 18-20, 47, 111.

[188] LTCHA, note 44, ss. 141-143.

[189] LTCHA, note 44, s. 76.

[190] LTCHA, note 44, s. 85.

[191] LTCHA, note 44, s. 143.

[192] The powers and functions of Residents’ and Family Councils are set out in the LTCHA, note 44, ss. 56 – 67.

[193] Elyse Sunshine, “LHINs: A Primer”, online: www.grllp.com/…/9%20-%20Local%20Health%20Integration%20Netwo [Sunshine]; Paul Barker, “Local Health Integration Networks: The Arrival of Regional Health Authorities In Ontario”(Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, May 2007) 5 [Barker].

[194] Gokal Bhandari & Anne Snowdon, “Design of a patient-centric, service-oriented health care navigation system for a local health integration network” Behaviour and Information Technology, Vol 31 No 3, March 2012,  275; Barker, note 193, 2.

[195] Barker, note 193, 6, 7; Sunshine, note 193, 1; Bob Gardner, Local Health Integration Networks: Potential, Challenges and Policy Directions (Wellesley Institute: June 2006), 2.

[196] Local Health System Integration Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 4, [LHSIA], ss. 14(6) and 18(4).

[197] LHSIA, note 196, s. 1.

[198] Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, “Patients First: Action Plan for Health Care” (Government of Ontario: February 2015) 5, 7, 13, 14.

[199] Sunshine, note 193, 2.

[200] Central Local Health Integration Network, “Creating Caring Communities: Advancing Excellence in Local Health Care Together”, 2, 10, online: http://www.centrallhin.on.ca/goalsandachievements/ihsp.aspx.

[201] Central Local Health Integration Network, “Patient Experience: Quality through the Eyes of the Patient”, [Central LHIN, “Patient Experience”] online: http://www.centrallhin.on.ca/goalsandachievements/patientexperience.aspx.

[202] Dr. Karima Velji, “Designing a Framework and Scorecard for Patient Experience for the Central LHIN and Beyond” (Central Local Health Integration Network, 2014), online:  http://www.centrallhin.on.ca/goalsandachievements/patientexperience.aspx.

[203] Central LHIN, “Patient Experience”, note 201.

[204] Bonnie Laschewicz and others, Understanding and Addressing Voices of Adults with Disabilities within Their Family Caregiving Contexts: Implications for Capacity, Decision-Making and Guardianship (Toronto: Law Commission of Ontario, January 2014), online: http://lco-cdo.org/en/capacity-guardianship-commissioned-paper-lashewicz, provides examples both of families who are attempting to support individuals in this sense, and of families that employ a more paternalistic approach to decision-making for their loved ones.

[205] Declaration and Reservation, note 59.

[206] Declaration and Reservation, note 59.

[207] AGTA, note 42, s. 13; Adult Guardianship and Co-Decision-making Act, note 42, ss. 13, 39.

[208] ACE Submission Legal Capacity, note 144, 8.

[209] The full figures for 2013-2014 are included in LCO, Legal Capacity and Decision-making Discussion Paper, note 2, Part Three, III.C.3. There were 1838 open personal guardianship files and 16,833 open property guardianship files. The numbers should be treated with caution: while the PGT maintains a register of private guardianships, it is up to the guardian to inform the PGT of the termination of the guardianship due to, for example, death of the person under guardianship so that there may be fewer active guardianships in the province than these numbers suggest.

[210] Adult Protection and Decision-Making Act, note 41, ss. 5(2), 11; AGTA, note 42, s. 6(2).).

[211] Advocacy Centre for the Elderly, Written submission to the LCO on the RDSP Project, February 28, 2014, 9.

[212] Coalition on Alternatives to Guardianship, Brief, note 30, 26.

[213] SDA, note 6, ss. 33(3),(4), (5); 66(5),(6),(7), (8).

[214] SDA, note 6, ss. 66(2.1), (3), (4).

[215] SDA, note 6, ss. 66(8) and (9).

[216] HCCA, note 5, s. 21.

[217] Advocacy Centre for the Elderly, Written submission to the LCO on the Framework for the Law as It Affects Older Adults, July 2008, 23-24.

[218] See Conway v Fleming, [1996] 1242 ACWS (3d) 62, para 282-285; W (Re), 2006 CarswellOnt 9390 (ON CCB) para 28 and 30.

[219] HCCA, note 5, s. 7; R. v. Thomas, 2000 CarswellOnt 1173; [2000] OJ No 1308; 46 WCB (2d) 59, para 4.

[220] MHA, note 7, s. 20.

[221] R v. Webers 95 CCC (3d) 334; [1994] OJ No 2 (QL); 25 WCB (2d) 305 1994 CanLII 7552 (ON SC).

[222] LTCHA, note 44, s. 32.

[223] Retirement Homes Act, 2010, S.O. 2010, c. 11, s. 70.

[224] HCCA, note 5, ss. 53.1, 54.2.

[225] VLRC, Final Report, note 43, Ch. 15, 318.

[226] VLRC, Final Report, note 43, Ch. 15.

[227] See R v. Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust; Ex parte L [1998] All ER 289 for the original decision of the House of Lords, and HL v United Kingdom 40 EHRR 32 for the decision of the European Court of Justice.

[228] Mental Capacity Act, note 42, Sched. A.1, “Hospital and Care Home Residents: Deprivation of Liberty”.

[229] SDA, note 6, s. 37.

[230] SDA, note 6, s. 32(1).

[231] SDA, note 6, s. 31(1).

[232] Daphne A. Dukelow, Pocket Dictionary of Canadian Law, 3rd ed, (Toronto: Carswell, 2011) [Pocket Dictionary] under the word “agent”.

[233] John A. Yogis & Catherine Cotter, Barron’s Canadian Law Dictionary, (Hauppauge, N.Y.: Barron’s Educational Series, 2009), 6th ed, under the word “agent”.

[234] Graham Mining Ltd. v. Rapid-Eau Technologies Inc. [2000] O.J. No. 5332.

[235] Menna v. Guglietti (1969), 10 D.L.R. (3d) 132 (Ont. H.C.); Olanick v. R. Cholkan & Co. (1980), [1980] I.L.R. 1-1282 (Ont. H.C.); Mitchell v. Sykes (1883), 4 O.R. 501 (Ont. H.C.); People’s Credit Jewellers Ltd. v. Melvin (1933), [1933] O.W.N. 76 (Ont. Co. Ct.).

[236] Paul S. Starr & Co. v. Watson (1972), [1973] 1 O.R. 148 (Ont. C.A.).

[237] Johnson v. Birkett (1910), 21 O.L.R. 319 (Ont. K.B.); Laskin v. Bache & Co. (1971), [1972] 1 O.R. 465 (Ont. C.A.); Royal Securities Corp. v. Montreal Trust Co. (1967), [1967] 2 O.R. 200 (Ont. C.A.); Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan v. Aetna Life Insurance Co. of Canada (1992), 98 D.L.R. (4th) 582 (Ont. Gen. Div.).

[238] Garber v. Union Bank of Canada (1919), 46 O.L.R. 129 (Ont. H.C.); Rudd Paper Box Co. v. Rice (1912), 3 O.W.N. 534 (Ont. C.A.); Canadian Packing Co. v. Union Stockyards of Toronto (1922), 23 O.W.N. 291 (Ont. H.C.); affirmed (1923), 24 O.W.N. 33 (Ont. Div. Ct.); Independent Cash Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Winterborn (1913), 4 O.W.N. 674 (Ont. H.C.); Zuckschwerdt v. Royal Bank (1932), 41 O.W.N. 435 (Ont. C.A.); Metropolitan Toronto Pension Plan v. Aetna Life Insurance Co. of Canada (1992), 98 D.L.R. (4th) 582 (Ont. Gen. Div.); Alan Webster Family Trust v. Midland Walwyn Capital Inc. (2002), 2002 CarswellOnt 276 (Ont. S.C.J.); varied (2005), 2005 CarswellOnt 2760 (Ont. C.A.).

[239] Timmins (Town) v. Brewers’ Warehousing Co Ltd [1962] O.R. 536, 539 [1962] O.J. No. 574.

[240] Pocket Dictionary, note 232, under the word “deputy”.

[241] See, for example, Interpretation Act, RSO 1990, c I.11 [repealed], ss. 28, 77. 

[242] Pocket Dictionary, note 232, under the word “representative”.

[243] Human Rights Code, note 68, ss. 11 and 17.

[244] Human Rights Code, note 68, O. Reg. 290/98, Business Practices Permissible To Landlords In Selecting Prospective Tenants For Residential Accommodation.

[245] Krista James & Laura Watts (Canadian Centre for Elder Law), Understanding the Lived Experiences of Supported Decision-Making in Canada (Toronto: Law Commission of Ontario, March 2014), [James & Watts] 49-55, online: http://lco-cdo.org/en/capacity-guardianship-commissioned-paper-ccel.

[246] For an outline of Alberta’s supported decision-making authorizations see LCO, Legal Capacity and Decision-making Discussion Paper, note 2, 126-128.

[247] James & Watts, note 245, 57-62.

[248] LCO, RDSP Final Report, note 13, section IV.C.3.

[249] Sophie Nunnelley, Personal Support Networks in Practice and Theory: Assessing Their Implications for Supported Decision-making Law (Toronto: Law Commission of Ontario, January 2015), [Nunnelley, Personal Support Networks], online: http://www.lco-cdo.org/en/capacity-guardianship-commissioned-paper-nunnelley.

[250] Nunnelley, Personal Support Networks, note 249, 103.

[251] National Initiative for the Care of the Elderly, Defining and Measuring Elder Abuse and Neglect: Synthesis of Preparatory Work Required to Measure the Prevalence of Abuse and Neglect of Older Adults in Canada (Toronto: 2012).

[252] BC Adult Abuse/Neglect Prevention Collaborative, Vulnerable Adults and Capability Issues in BC, Provincial Strategy Document (January 2009), 23, online: http://www.bcli.org/sites/default/files/Vanguard (16May09).pdf.

[253] Focus Group, Families of Individuals with Developmental Disabilities, December 3, 2014.

[254] Rae Campbell v. George Xenoyannis and Adrianna Solman, Superior Court of Justice, Small Claims Court, SC – 14-00035494-00, July 2, 2015, 85.

[255] LCO, Framework for the Law as It Affects Older Adults, note 1, 97; LCO, Framework for the Law as It Affects Persons with Disabilities, note 1, 85-87.

[256] Online: http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/family/pgt/incapacity/poa.asp.

[257] SDA, note 6, ss. 10(2), 48(2).

[258] Powers of Attorney Act, C.C.S.M. c. P97 [Manitoba, Powers of Attorney Act], s. 11(1).

[259] Powers of Attorney Act, 2002, S.S. 2002, c. P-20.3, [Saskatchewan, Powers of Attorney Act] s. 12(1)(b), Powers of Attorney Regulations, RRS P-20.3, Reg. 1 Form E.

[260] Law Reform Commission of Nova Scotia, The Power of Attorney Act, Final Report, August 2015, [Nova Scotia LRC, Final Report] 85, online: http://www.lawreform.ns.ca/Downloads/Final_Report_Powers_of_Attorney_Act.pdf.

[261] Enduring Power of Attorney Act, R.S.Y. 2002, c. 73, s 3(1)(b)(iv).

[262] Saskatchewan, Powers of Attorney Act, note 259, s. 12(1).

[263] Power of Attorney Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c 370, s. 17.

[264] VLRC, Final Report, note 43, 195

[265] Joffe & Montigny, note 27, 107.

[266] Nova Scotia LRC, Final Report, note 260, 175.

[267] Nova Scotia Law Reform Commission, Powers of Attorney Act, Discussion Paper, March 2014, 153, online: http://www.lawreform.ns.ca/Downloads/Discussion%20Paper%20-%20Powers%20of%20Attorney%20Act.pdf.

[268] Nova Scotia LRC, Final Report, note 260, 175.

[269] Zonni v. Zonni Estate, 2006 CarswellOnt 519 (WL Can).

[270] Fareed v. Wood, 2005 CarswellOnt 4591 (WL Can) para 20.

[271] SDA, note 6, s. 42.

[272] For example, in the United Kingdom, appointed deputies are required to regularly submit accounts to the Public Guardian and Trustee: COP, note 162, 8.66.

[273] Joffe & Montigny, note 27, 102-103.

[274] Joffe & Montigny, note 27, 103-104.

[275] Mental Capacity Act, note 42, ss. 49, 58, 61.

[276] COP, note 162, 248.

[277] Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (QLD) [Guardianship and Administration Act], ss. 222-24.

[278] Guardianship and Administration Act, note 277, s. 224.

[279] Guardianship and Administration Act, note 277, s. 224(3).

[280] Guardianship and Administration Act, note 277, s. 227.

[281] ACE, Congregate Living, note 184, 88 and following.

[282] Representation Agreement Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 405, [Representation Agreement Act], s. 12(1).

[283] Representation Agreement Act, note 282, s. 16.

[284] Manitoba, Powers of Attorney Act, note 258, s. 22.

[285] HCCA, note 5, s. 32.

[286] HCCA, note 5, ss. 50, 65.           

[287] SDA, note 6, s. 20.1.

[288] HCCA, note 5, ss. 33, 51, 66.

[289] HCCA, note 5, ss. 35, 53, 68.

[290] HCCA, note 5, ss. 37, 54, 69.

[291] HCCA, note 5, ss. 35, 52, 67.

[292] HCCA, note 5, ss. 34, 53.1, 54.2. Note that the provisions with respect to secure units are not yet in force.

[293] For the fiscal year 2011-2012, over 80 per cent of all applications fell into these categories: Consent and Capacity Board, Annual Report 2011 – 2012, 5, online: http://www.ccboard.on.ca/scripts/english/governance/Annual-Reports.asp.

[294] Consent and Capacity Board, Rules of Practice, 23.1 “Evidence” online: http://www.ccboard.on.ca/english/legal/documents/rulesofpractice.pdf.

[295] HCCA, note 5, s. 75.

[296] HCCA, note 5, s. 80.

[297] Communication from the Public Guardian and Trustee, June 18, 2015. One hundred and sixty-two court appointments of guardians in 2005 were of persons or institutions other than the PGT; the number  in 2006 was 172; 182 in 2007; 188 in 2008; 175 in 2009; 206 in 2010; 184 in 2011; 250 in 2012; 207 in 2013; and 227 in 2014. Over the same period of time, the court appointed the PGT as guardian in between 10 and 18 cases per year.

[298] SDA, note 6, ss. 39, 68.

[299] SDA, note 6, ss. 39(4), 68(4).

[300] SDA, note 6, ss. 42(7)-(8).

[301] SDA, note 6, ss. 82-83.

[302] Communication from the Public Guardian and Trustee, May 6, 2014.

[303] MHLC Submission, note 155, 7.

[304] Joffe & Montigny, note 27, 108.

[305] An overview of self-help tools available for people with family disputes can be found in Law Commission of Ontario, Increasing Access to Family Justice through Comprehensive Entry Points and Inclusivity: Final Report (Toronto: February 2013), [LCO, Increasing Access to Family Justice] section B.1, online: http://lco-cdo.org/en/family-law-reform-final-report.

[306] LCO, Increasing Access to Family Justice, note 305, 24-25. There are ongoing initiatives to improve family law processes, although issues remain.

[307] MHLC Submission, note 155, 7.

[308] Joffe & Montigny, note 27, 62-63.

[309] Doug Surtees, “How Goes the Battle? An Exploration of Guardianship Reform” (2012) 50:1 Alta. L. R. 115-27 [Surtees].

[310] Focus Group, Trusts and Estates Lawyers 1, October 14, 2014.

[311] Joffe & Montigny, note 27, 107-108

[312] MHLC Submission, note 155, 6.

[313] Cuthbertson v. Rasouli, [2013] 3 SCR 341, 2013 SCC 53.

[314] LTCHA, note 44: section 19 imposes a duty on long-term care homes to protect against abuse, and section 20 requires long-term care homes to create and abide by a zero tolerance policy towards abuse and neglect. Section 24 provides for mandatory reporting of certain types of behaviours, including abuse and neglect.

[315] LTCHA, note 44; Services and Supports to Promote the Social Inclusion of Persons with Developmental Disabilities, 2008, S.O. 2008, c. 14.

[316] ACE Submission Legal Capacity, note 144, 9.

[317] Joffe & Montigny, note 27, 104.

[318] LCO, Framework for the Law as It Affects Older Adults, note 1, Step 6 “Do the Complaint and Enforcement Mechanisms Respect the Principles?”. Emphasis in the original.

[319] See Toronto Mental Health Court, “Overview of the Court” (2008), online: http://www.mentalhealthcourt.ca; Justice Richard D. Schneider, “Mental Health Courts” in Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office, Honouring the Past, Shaping the Future: 25 Years of Progress in Mental Health Advocacy and Rights Protection (Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2008), 186-88.

[320] Judiciary of England and Wales, Court of Protection Report 2010, 6, online: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications/court-of-protection-report-2010/.

[321] Mental Capacity Act, note 42, s. 51.

[322] Mental Capacity Act, note 42, s. 42.

[323] Mental Capacity Act, note 42, s. 49.

[324] Rasanen v. Rosemount Instruments Ltd.  (Ont. C.A.) 17 OR (3d) 267; 112 DLR (4th) 683; 175 NR 350; [1994] CarswellNS 154; [1994] FCJ No 1584 (QL); [1994] OJ No 200 (QL); 1 CCEL (2d) 161; 367 APR 19; 68 OAC 284; 94 CLLC 14.

[325] Andrew Leggatt, Tribunals for Users: One System, One Service, Report of the Review of Tribunals, March 2001, para. 1.2.

[326] Alison Christou, “The ‘Good’ Tribunal  Member –‐ an Aretaic Approach to Administrative Tribunal Practice”  (2009) 28:2 Univ Qld Law J 339, 342-43; Stephen H Legomsky, Specialized justice : courts, administrative tribunals, and a cross–‐national theory of specialization (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990) 10–12.

[327] Terry Carney & David Tait, The Adult Guardianship Experiment: Tribunals and Popular Justice (Sydney: The Federation Press, 1997) 197.

[328] VLRC, Final Report, note 43; QLRC R67, note 51, Chapter 20.

[329] VLRC, Final Report, note 43, 485.

[330] Written submission of the Northumberland Community Legal Centre to the LCO, November 17, 2014, 3.

[331] Judith McCormack, “Nimble Justice: Revitalizing Administrative Tribunals in a Climate of Rapid Change” (1995) 59 Sask Law Review 385 at 5-6, 9-10.

[332] A helpful discussion may be found in Wendi J Mackay, “Administrative Institutions from Principles to Practice: Guidelines for Review and Design” (2006) 19:1 Can J Admin Law Pract 63. Also see Lorne Sossin & Jamie Baxter, “Ontario’s Administrative Tribunal Clusters: A Glass Half Full or Half Empty for Administrative Justice? (2012) online: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/all_papers/28, 10–11.

[333] See JG (CCB) (2012) CanLii 48963; JD (CCB) (2011) CanLii 86366

[334] Select Committee on the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Mental Capacity Act 2005: Post-Legislative Scrutiny HL Paper 139, Published by the Authority of the House of Lords, 13 March 2014, [Mental Capacity Act Post-Legislative Scrutiny] 83.

[335] Guardianship and Administration Act 1986 (Vic), s. 16.

[336] VLRC, Final Report, note 43, 447.

[337] VLRC, Final Report, note 43, 455.

[338] Guardianship and Administration Act, note 277, s. 180.

[339] Guardianship and Administration Act, note 277, s. 183(1).

[340] Guardianship and Administration Act, note 277, s. 193.

[341] QLRC R67, note 51, Vol 4, 176.

[342] Mental Capacity Act, note 42, s. 58(1).

[343] COP, note 162, 250-51.

[344] Consent and Capacity Board, Policy Guideline 2: Ordering Counsel Where the Subject of an Application Does Not Have Legal Representation (September 2007) online: http://www.ccboard.on.ca/english/legal/documents/policyguideline2.pdf.  

[345] Consent and Capacity Board, Policy Guideline 2: Ordering Counsel Where the Subject of an Application Does Not Have Legal Representation (September 2007) online: http://www.ccboard.on.ca/english/legal/documents/policyguideline2.pdf. 

[346] During the LCO’s public consultations, some health practitioners communicated their concerns that patients very often have legal representation during a hearing while it is rare for them to have access to legal assistance: some felt that this creates some imbalance in the proceedings, while others felt that it added to the challenges of their role during a hearing.

[347] Legal Aid Services Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 26, s. 13.

[348] Legal Aid Ontario, Mental Health Strategy Consultation Paper (November 2013) 13, [LAO, Mental Health Strategy] online: http://legalaid.on.ca/en/policy/downloads/Mental%20Health%20Strategy%20consultation%20paper.pdf?t=1429543918228.

[349] MHLC Submission, note 155, 8.

[350] Ontario Ministry of Finance, 2014 Ontario Budget, online: http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/ontariobudgets/2014/ch1d.html#s1-71.

[351] Ontario Ministry of Finance, 2014 Ontario Budget, note 350.

[352] Legal Aid Ontario, 2015 Questions and Answers: Legal Eligibility, [LAO, Legal Eligibility], online: http://www.legalaid.on.ca/en/info/legaleligibility_qanda.asp.

[353] LAO, Legal Eligibility, note 352.

[354] LAO, Legal Eligibility, note 352.

[355] LAO, Mental Health Strategy, note 348.

[356] LAO, Mental Health Strategy, note 348.

[357] LAO, Mental Health Strategy, note 348, 6.

[358] Canadian Centre for Elder Law, Elder and Guardianship Mediation Report, (Vancouver, B.C.: 2011) [CCEL, Elder and Guardianship Mediation] 32, online: http://www.bcli.org/sites/default/files/EGM_Report_Jan_30_2012.pdf.  Note that this Report was developed in anticipated of the inclusion of mandatory mediation in British Columbia’s Adult Guardianship Act. However, the relevant amendments from S.B.C. 2007, Bill 29, Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Amendment Act, have not been proclaimed in force.

[359] MHLC Submission, note 155, 6.

[360] Mental Capacity Act Post-Legislative Scrutiny, note 334, 85.

[361] Written submission from the ADR Institute of Ontario to the LCO, September 23, 2014, 5.

[362] SDA, note 6, s. 88.

[363] CCEL, Elder and Guardianship Mediation, note 358, 134.

[364] CCEL, Elder and Guardianship Mediation, note 358, Chapter 7.

[365] Willson A McTavish, “The Office of the Official Guardian” (1988) 7 Advocates Soc J 2, 23-25. In Wu Estate v. Zurich Insurance Co, the Ontario Court of Appeal noted that the requirement in Rule 7 derives from the court’s parens patriae jurisdiction: the duty of the court is to examine the settlement and ensure that it is in the best interests of the party under disability [2006] 268 DLR (4th) 670, para 10.

[366] Lang v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2005 HRTO 5, para 8, 52, 57, 63, 64, 70.

[367] Tess Sheldon & Ivana Petricone, Addressing the Capacity of Parties before Ontario’s Administrative Tribunals: Respecting Autonomy, Protecting Fairness, (Toronto: ARCH Disability Law Centre, 2009) 44.

[368] Communication from the Public Guardian and Trustee, May 6, 2014. According to the figures provided, there were 3975 open court-appointed guardianships for property (318 of these had the PGT as guardian; the remainder were private). There were 12, 858 statutory guardianships: 2379 private statutory guardianships, 4881 held by the PGT under s. 15 of the SDA; 3657 held by the PGT under s. 16 of the SDA; and 31 held by the PGT under s. 19 of the SDA.

[369] Capacity Assessment Reg, note 93, ss. 2(1)(a), 2(2).

[370] SDA, note 6, ss. 78(1)-(3).

[371] SDA, note 6, ss. 78(1)-(3).

[372] SDA, note 6, s. 78(2).

[373] SDA, note 6, ss. 78(5), 16(4).

[374] SDA, note 6, ss. 16(5)-(6).

[375] MHA, note 7, s. 59(2).

[376] Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office, Annual Report 2011: Rights Protection in a Time of Change (Toronto: 2011), 6, online: www.sse.gov.on.ca/mohltc/ppao/en/Documents/PPAO%20Annual%20Report%202011.pdf. 

[377] Fram Report, note 12, 104.

[378] SDA, note 6, ss. 24, 57.

[379] SDA, note 6, s. 59.

[380] SDA, note 6, s. 70.

[381] SDA, note 6, s. 69.

[382] Summary disposition applications require the filing of two pieces of evidence containing an opinion that the adult is incapable. At least one of these must contain an opinion that it is necessary for decisions to be made on the adult’s behalf and at least one must be undertaken by a capacity assessor. See SDA, note 6, ss. 72, 77-78.

[383] SDA, note 6, s. 69.

[384] Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, “Role of the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee”, Paper prepared for the Law Society of Upper Canada Program, Advocacy for the Senior Client (September 24, 2003).

[385] SDA, note 6, ss. 72-77.

[386] Consultation with Brendon Pooran.

[387] Consultation with Saara Chetner and Risa Stone (Counsel for the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee).

[388] Law Society of Upper Canada, “How to Have a Guardian of Property Appointed through Court Application”, online: http://www.lsuc.on.ca/For-Lawyers/Manage-Your-Practice/Practice-Area/Trusts-and-Estates-Law/How-to-Have-a-Guardian-of-Property-Appointed-through-Court-Application/.

[389] SDA, note 6, ss. 25(1), 58(1).

[390] SDA, note 6, ss. 24, 57.

[391] See for example, Covello v. Sturino [2007] O.J. No 2306 158; Deschamps, note 122.

[392] Koch (Re), note 106.

[393] Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Committee Transcripts: Standing Committee on Administration of Justice, “Bill 74, Advocacy Act, 1992, and Companion Legislation” (October 5, 1992). A “Ulysses contract” allows a person creating a power of attorney for personal care to waive rights to challenge a finding of incapacity or to permit the use of force to facilitate treatment. Not surprisingly, the requirements for the creation of a “Ulysses contract” are stringent: see SDA, note 6, s. 50; HCCA, note 5, s. 32(2).

[394] Michael Bach & Lana Kerzner, Fulfilling the Promise, Ensuring Alternatives to Guardianship, unpublished paper, received March 2014, 17-18.

[395] MAG, Guidelines, note 54, Part VI.

[396] Data for the 2013/2014 fiscal year, provided by the Public Guardian and Trustee. This figure should be treated with caution, however: while guardians have a duty to inform the PGT’s registry when a guardianship is terminated, the PGT does not itself actively monitor the registry.

[397] Surtees, note 309, 115-27.

[398] Joffe & Montigny, note 27, 62.

[399] MAG, Guidelines, note 54, Part VI.

[400] Koch (Re), note 106.

[401] [1997] O.J. No. 4894 (Ont. Gen. Div.).

[402] Deschamps, note 122, para. 11.

[403] Coalition on Alternatives to Guardianship, Brief, note 30, 28.

[404] Coalition on Alternatives to Guardianship, Brief, note 30, 28.

[405] Mental Capacity Act, note 42, c.9, s. 49.

[406] Court of Protection, Rules of Procedure 2007, Rule 117, Reports Under Section 49 of the Act.

[407] Guardianship and Administration Act 1986 (Vic), [Guardianship and Administration Act (Vic)], s 16(1)(d); VLRC, Final Report, note 43, 470.

[408] Office of the Public Advocate, Annual Report 2013-2014, 16-17, online: http://www.publicadvocate.vic.gov.au/our-services/publications-forms/strategic-plans-and-annual-reports/18-opa-annual-report-2013-2014.

[409]Utah Courts, “Court Visitor Volunteers”, online: https://www.utcourts.gov/visitor/.

[410] Oregon provides an example of a more formalized Court Visitor program. The Court Visitor’s role is to gather information pertaining to whether guardianship is necessary, and if so, whether the proposed guardian is suitable. The Visitor must interview the individual who is the subject of the application, the proposed guardian, other family members and other individuals identified by the court, and provide a written report with recommendations in the prescribed format within 15 days of appointment. See for example, Deschutes County Circuit Court, Court Visitor Information and Instructions, online: http://courts.oregon.gov/Deschutes/docs/form/court_visitor/VisitorInstructions.pdf.

[411] Human Rights Code, note 68, s. 44.

[412] Pamela B. Teaster and others, “Staff Service and Volunteer Staff Service Models for Public Guardianship and “Alternatives” Services: Who Is Served and with What Outcomes?” 5 J. Of Ethics L. & Aging 131 (1999) 142-145.

[413] For Alberta’s previous process, see Dependent Adults Act, R.S.A. 2000, c.D-11, ss.70-72. For its current court-based process, see AGTA, note 42, Divisions 3 and 4.

[414] California Probate Code §2920(a)(1).

[415] SDA, note 6, ss.27, 62.

[416] SDA, note 6, ss. 24(2.1), 55(2.2).

[417] The application form for referral can be found at http://humanservices.alberta.ca/documents/PT0002.pdf.

[418] California Probate Code, §2952-2955.

[419] The Public Guardian and Trustee Act, S.S. 1983, c. P-36-.3, s. 29(2) [The Public Guardian and Trustee Act]; The Public Guardian and Trustee Regulations, R.R.S. c. P-36.3, Reg. 1, s. 27(1). See also Saskatchewan Ministry of Justice, “Capacity and Incapacity Forms” (2012), online: http://www.justice.gov.sk.ca/Capacity-Incapacity-Forms. Restrictions exist on who can give a certificate, see: The Mental Health Services Act, S.S. 1984-85-86, c. M-13.1, s. 15.

[420] The Public Guardian and Trustee Act, note 419, s. 29(3); Saskatchewan Ministry of Justice and Attorney General, Substitute Decision Making — A Framework (Regina: Public Guardian and Trustee, 2011), 9, online: http://www.justice.gov.sk.ca/PGT-sdm.

[421] SDA, note 6,  s. 20.1

[422] Guardianship and Administration Act (Vic), note 407, ss. 61(1), 63(1).

[423] VLRC, Final Report, note 43, 243. 

[424] AGTA, note 42, ss. 33(8), 54(7).

[425] Adult Guardianship and Co-Decision-making Act, note 42, s. 40(3).

[426] Joffe & Montigny, note 27, 98.

[427] Joffe & Montigny, note 27, 98-99.

[428] Joffe & Montigny note 27, 98.

[429] Joffe & Montigny note 27, 97-98.

[430] AGTA, note 42, s. 54(5).

[431] VLRC, Final Report, note 43, 192.

[432] VLRC, Final Report, note 43, 264.

[433] Surtees, note 309, 115-127.

[434] Irish Bill 2013, note 42, s. 27. The Bill was reviewed by the Select Committee on Justice on June 17, 2015.

[435] LCO, RDSP Final Report, note 13.

[436] HCCA, note 5, ss. 33, 51

[437] SDA, note 6, ss. 5, 12(1), 44, 46(3), 53(1)(a

[438] SDA, note 6, s. 40

[439] The exception to this being for summary disposition applications, which are uncontested.

[440] SDA, note 6, ss. 24, 57.

[441] SDA, note 6, s. 17(1).

[442] SDA, note 6, s. 17(4)-(5).

[443] HCCA, note 5, ss. 20(1), 41, 58.

[444] HCCA, note 5, s. 20(2).

[445] HCCA, note 5, s. 20(5).

[446] SDA, note 6, ss. 15, 16

[447] SDA, note 6, ss. 27, 62

[448] SDA, note 6, ss. 24, 57

[449] Figures provided by the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, based on the Register of Guardians maintained by the Public Guardian and Trustee as required by Regulation 99/96 under the Substitute Decisions Act.

[450] Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, The Role of the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2006, reprinted 2013), [OPGT, The Role] 3.

[451] Figures provided by the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, based on the Register of Guardians maintained by the Public Guardian and Trustee as required by Regulation 99/96 under the Substitute Decisions Act.

[452] Figures provided by the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, based on the Register of Guardians maintained by the Public Guardian and Trustee as required by Regulation 99/96 under the Substitute Decisions Act.

[453] Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, Annual Report 2011 – 2012, [OPGT, Annual Report 2011 – 2012] 3, online: http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/family/pgt/2011report.pdf.

[454] OPGT, Annual Report 2011 – 2012, note 453, 5.

[455] ACE Submission Legal Capacity, note 144, 9.

[456] SDA, note 6, ss. 24, 46(2), 57.

[457] LCO, Framework for the Law as It Affects Persons with Disabilities, note 1, 83.

[458] LCO, Framework for the Law as It Affects Older Adults, note 1, 94.

[459] LCO, Framework for the Law as It Affects Persons with Disabilities, note 1, 4; LCO, Framework for the Law as It Affects Older Adults, note 1, 3.

[460] SDA, note 6, s. 17(4)-(5).

[461] The exception to this being for summary disposition applications, which are uncontested.

[462] HCCA, note 5, s. 53(1).

[463] HCCA, note 5, s. 53(2).

[464] Pamela B. Teaster, Erica F Wood, Winsor C. Schmidt Junior, Susan A. Lawrence, Public Guardianship After 25 Years: In the Best Interests of Incapacitated People? National Study of Public Guardianship, Phase II Report (American Bar Association: 2007) [Teaster and others, Public Guardianship After 25 Years] 105, online: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/aging/PublicDocuments/wards_state_full_rep_11_15_07.authcheckdam.pdf.

[465] See, for example, Janet Phelan “Funding Shortage Inhibiting PFB’s Effectiveness”, San Bernardino County Sentinal, November 19, 2010, online: http://www.estateofdenial.com/2010/11/20/californias-professional-fiduciaries-bureau-appears-ineffective-in-its-mission/; “Law-makers take first step to curb abuse by professional guardians”, online: http://www.myelderadvocate.com/news/story/lawmakers-take-%E2%80%98first-step%E2%80%9D-to-curb-abuse-by-professional-guardians; “Viewers claim guardians abuse elderly’s rights”, online: http://www.local10.com/news/call-christina-viewers-claim-guardians-abuse-elderlys-rights/32658868; National Association to Stop Guardian Abuse, online: http://stopguardianabuse.org/; Colton Lochhead, “Clark County’s private guardians may protect — or just steal and abuse”,  Los Vegas Review Journal, online: http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/clark-county-s-private-guardians-may-protect-or-just-steal-and-abuse.

[466] Manitoba Law Reform Commission, Regulating Professions and Occupations, October 1994, [Manitoba LRC, Regulating Professions] online: http://www.manitobalawreform.ca/pubs/pdf/archives/84-full_report.pdf.

[467] Manitoba LRC, Regulating Professions, note 466, 19.

[468] See also Canada Competition Bureau Report, Self-regulated professions:  Balancing competition and regulation (2007) which also recognizes that regulation adversely affects competition and thereby limits choice and higher price for service for consumers.

[469] Manitoba LRC, Regulating Professions, note 466, 24.

[470] Manitoba LRC, Regulating Professions, note 466, 48.

[471] Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 18 [RHPA], s. 11(2)(a).

[472] Health Professionals Regulatory Advisory Council, Regulation of a New Health Profession under the Regulated Health Professions Act (RHPA), 1991 – Criteria and Process (July 2011), [HPRAC], online: http://www.hprac.org/en/reports/resources/RegulatingaNewProfession_CriteriaProcess_July2011.pdf.

[473]  HPRAC, note 472. 

[474] California Professional Fiduciaries Act § 6510 [CPFA].

[475] Tex. Gov’t Code Ann § 152 (West 2014). 

[476] One author estimates that one-quarter of all guardianships in the U.S. are provided in this way: Alison Barnes, “The Virtues of Corporate and Professional Guardians”, 2002 Stetson Law Review, Vol. XXXI, 941-1025, 942.

[477] National Guardianship Association, online: www.guardianship.org.

[478] CPFA, note 474, § 6538(a).

[479] Tex Gov’t Code Ann § 152.101 (West 2014).

[480] Fla Stat Ann § 744.3135 (West 2015); see also Fla Stat Ann §§ 744.1085(3), 744.1085(4) (West 2015.).

[481] CPFA, note 474, § 6536.

[482] Tex Gov’t Code Ann § 152.101 (West 2014).

[483] Fla Stat Ann § 744.1085(2) (West 2015).

[484] Wash Rev. Code Ann 11.88.100 (West).

[485] Professional Fiduciary Association of California, online: http://www.pfac-pro.org.

[486] CPFA, note 474, § 6580(c).

[487] Fla Stat Ann § 744.1085(3) (West 2015); see also Florida State Guardianship Association, “Guardianship Training,” online: www.floridaguardians.com/education/8-hour-family-course.

[488] CPFA, note 474, § 6538(b).

[489] Professional Fiduciaries Bureau, “Pre-Licensing Education Information”, online: http://www.fiduciary.ca.gov/forms_pubs/prelicreq.shtml.

[490] The registration form may be found at Department of Elder Affairs, State of Florida, “Professional Guardian Registration Status,” online: http://elderaffairs.state.fl.us/doea/spgo_professional.php.

[491] Fla Stat Ann § 744.3678 and 744.3675 (West 2015).

[492] CPFA, note 474, § 6560.

[493] CPFA, note 474, § 6561.

[494] Texas Judicial Branch, Judicial Branch Certification Commission, Guardianship Certification, Forms, “Renewal Applications,” online: http://www.txcourts.gov/media/928662/Applicant-Checklist-Renewal-04-03-15.pdf ; see also http://www.txcourts.gov/media/890873/Renewal-App-GC.pdf.

[495] Fla Stat Ann § 744.361(9) (West 2015).

[496] CPFA, note 474, § 6518, 6520.

[497] Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 25, Schedule B, s. 12(1).

[498] See in particular the Supporting Homeless Seniors Program, in which third party administrators, including not only family and friends, but also municipalities, registered charitable organizations, and non-profit organizations act on behalf of vulnerable seniors to receive CPP, OAS or Guaranteed Income Supplement benefits: Service Canada, Supporting Homeless Seniors Program – Overview, [Supporting Homeless Seniors], online: Service Canada http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/audiences/partners/thirdparty.shtml.

[499] Supporting Homeless Seniors, note 498.

[500] The Bloom Group, “About – Overview”, online: http://www.thebloomgroup.org/about/overview/.

[501] Interview with Lesley Anderson, Bloom Group, July 22, 2015.

[502] The Bloom Group, Annual Report 2013-2014, http://www.thebloomgroup.org/annualreport/.

[503] The Bloom Group, “Our Work”, online: http://www.thebloomgroup.org/our-work/adult-guardianship/.

[504] Canadian Hearing Society “Services – General Support Services”, online: http://www.chs.ca/services/general-support-services.

[505] Teaster and others, Public Guardianship After 25 Years, note 464, 90.

[506] LCO, RDSP Final Report, note 13, 66.

[507] See, for example, Guardianship Associates of Utah, which is the only non-profit organization in that state providing direct guardianship services. It also assists families in obtaining guardianship of their family members and provides public education on guardianship issues: http://guardianshiputah.org/.

[508] Saskatchewan, Powers of Attorney Act, note 259, s. 8.

[509] Law Reform Commission of Saskatchewan, Consultation Paper on Enduring Powers of Attorney, (Saskatoon: January 2001), 28, online: http://www.lawreformcommission.sk.ca/Papers.htm.

[510] Financial Institutions Act, RSBC 1996, c. 141, “Trust and Deposit  Business Exemption Regulation”, BC Reg 173/2008, s. 2.

[511] Pamela B. Teaster and others, The Florida Public Guardian Programs: An Evaluation of Program Status and Outcomes, Report for the Florida Department of Elder Affairs Statewide Public Guardianship Office (August 2009) [Teaster and others, The Florida Public Guardian Programs] 11.

[512] Teaster and others, The Florida Public Guardian Programs, note 511, 11.

[513] Teaster and others, The Florida Public Guardian Programs, note 511, 10.

[514] Teaster and others, Public Guardianship After 25 Years, note 464, 91-92.

[515] Adult Guardianship and Co-decision-making Act, note 42, s. 30.

[516] Interview with Doug Surtees, April 8, 2015.

[517] COP, note 162, 8.33.

[518] Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, “Panel Deputy Diversification Project”, 20 February 2014, online: http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.solicitorsfortheelderly.com%2Fassets%2Fmedia%2FOPG_-_Panel_Deputy_Diversification_Project_PP.ppt&ei=XXklVdnEHMTMsAWwtIGYBQ&usg=AFQjCNFTyae7MTt3utgxQvWNx9YBllqJ0g&sig2=Q8gRa2ZyXbYJpi0XxnwmLw&bvm=bv.90237346,d.b2w.

[519] Office of the Public Guardian, Deputy Standards – Professional deputies (July 2015) online: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/442272/ProDeputyStandardsFINALv3.pdf.

[520] LCO, RDSP Final Report, note 13, section IV.D.1.

[521] Written submission to the LCO from ARCH Disability Law Centre, October 31, 2014, 7-9 [ARCH Submission].                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

[522] ACE Submission Legal Capacity, note 144, 9.

[523] OBIA Submission, note 131.

[524] Wahl, Dykeman & Gray, note 132, 250-53.

[525] LCO, Framework for the Law as It Affects Persons with Disabilities, note 1, Step 5 “Do the Processes Under the Law Respect the Principles?”

[526] LCO, Framework for the Law as It Affects Persons with Disabilities, note 1, 54.

[527] LCO, Framework for the Law as It Affects Older Adults, note 1, 159; LCO, Framework for the Law as It Affects Persons with Disabilities, 54.

[528] ARCH Submission, note 521, 13.

[529] Irish Bill 2013, note 42, s. 56 (1)(a).

[530] Guardianship and Administration Act (Vic), note 407, s. 15(c).

[531] VLRC, Final Report, note 43, 448.

[532] VLRC, Final Report, note 43, 453

[533] VLRC, Final Report, note 43, 73-74.

[534] VLRC, Final Report, note 43, 72.

[535] Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth Act, 2007, S.O. 2007, c. 9, s. 1.

[536] AODA, note 50, s. 32(3).

[537] Human Rights Code, note 68, s. 29.

[538] Wahl, Dykeman & Gray, note 132.

[539] Joffe & Montigny, note 27, 100-101.

[540] VLRC, Final Report, note 43, 413.

[541] 46 OR (3d) 271; 180 DLR (4th) 72; [1999] OJ No 4236 (QL); 126 OAC 216; 70 CRR (2d) 29.

[542] A.M. v. Benes, 1998 CanLII 14770 (ON SC)

[543] Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council, Adjusting the Balance: A review of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 2001, 1, 11, online: http://www.hprac.org/en/reports/resources/RHPA_Review_2001_Report.pdf.

[544] Health Professions Procedural Code, Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 18, Sched 2 [Health Professions Procedural Code], s.2.1.

[545] Health Professions Procedural Code, note 544, s. 3(1).

[546] Conference Board of Canada, Achieving Public Protection through collaborative self-regulation: Reflections for a new paradigm, 2007, 54, online: www.eicp.ca/en/toolkit/regulation/achieving_public_protection.pdf.

[547] Joan M Gilmour, Merrijoy Kelner and Beverly Wellman, “Opening the Door to Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Self-Regulation in Ontario” (2003) 24 Law & Policy, 154.

[548] RHPA, note 471, s. 1.

[549] Zubin Austin and others, “Continuous Professional Development: The Ontario Experience in Professional Self-regulation through quality assurance and peer review”, (2003) 67 American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education,  227. Marianne Tompkins & Denise Paquette-Frenette, “Learning Portfolio Models in Health Regulatory Colleges of Ontario, Canada” (2010) Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions [Tompkins & Paquette-Frenette] 30, 57.

[550] Catherine J Schiller, “Self-regulation of the nursing profession: Focus on four Canadian provinces” (2015) Journal of Nursing Education and Practice 5, 101.

[551] Shannon L Sibbald and others, “Ontario primary care reform and quality improvement activities: An environmental scan (2013) BMC Health Services Research 13, 2.

[552] Tompkins & Paquette-Frenette, note 549, 60.

 

 

Previous
First Page
Table of Contents