Appendix C: Questions for Discussion

Appendix C: Questions for Discussion2017-03-03T18:30:49+00:00
  1. Do the benchmarks for reform accurately reflect the objectives that the options for reform in this project must meet to be effective?
  2. Have you experienced challenges in establishing a legal representative for the RDSP? If so, what were those challenges?
  3. Do adults, families and other interested parties face challenges with respect to establishing a legal representative for RDSP beneficiaries in Ontario that have not been identified in this discussion paper?
  4. What do you believe the goals for reform in this project should be?
  5. How do Ontario’s commitments to adults with mental disabilities affect the need and options for reform in this project?
  6. Do you have experience with a special limited POA for the RDSP in Saskatchewan?
  7. Are there lessons to be learned from provinces with a specific process to appoint a legal representative for RDSP beneficiaries?
  8. Would it be appropriate to lower Ontario’s threshold for capacity to grant a POA for property management for the specific purpose of establishing a legal representative for RDSP beneficiaries?
  9. If a different threshold for capacity to execute a personal authorization for the specific purpose of establishing a legal representative for RDSP beneficiaries were accepted in Ontario, what definition of capacity would be flexible enough to meet the needs of RDSP beneficiaries?
  10. Would a threshold for capacity based on the common law standard or non-cognitive criteria increase an RDSP beneficiary’s risk of vulnerability to financial abuse and misuse of a legal representative’s powers?
  11. How would a supported decision-making arrangement or representation agreement for the specific purpose of establishing a legal representative for RDSP beneficiaries impact third parties?
  12. How could a personal appointment process for the specific purpose of establishing a legal representative for RDSP beneficiaries be implemented in the Ontario context? Would it require an amendment to the SDA or the enactment of a standalone statute?
  13. Would a co-decision making arrangement be flexible enough to meet the needs of RDSP beneficiaries?
  14. How would a co-decision making arrangement for the specific purpose of establishing a legal representative for RDSP beneficiaries impact third parties?
  15. Could a streamlined court process be used for the specific purpose of establishing a legal representative for RDSP beneficiaries as an “alternative course of action” to guardianship? Would an amendment to the SDA or enactment of a standalone statute be necessary to expand the Superior Court of Justice’s mandate?
  16. What measures would be required to make a streamlined court process for the specific purpose of establishing a legal representative for RDSP beneficiaries fair, cost-effective, speedy and user friendly?
  17. Is there a role for community organizations in providing enhanced support at the front-end of a streamlined court process for the specific purpose of establishing a legal representative for RDSP beneficiaries? 
  18. Would it be feasible to integrate a process for the specific purpose of establishing a legal representative for RDSP beneficiaries into the existing mandate of the Consent and Capacity Board?
  19. Should an external appointment process for the specific purpose of establishing a legal representative for RDSP beneficiaries be based on an assessment of capacity or an adult’s need for assistance in RDSP decision-making?
  20. Could a trustee act as a legal representative for RDSP beneficiaries in Ontario?
  21. Who would have legal authority to create a trust for the specific purpose of establishing a legal representative for RDSP beneficiaries and to transfer the RDSP funds to the trustee?
  22. What measures would be required to implement a trust mechanism as an option for reform in Ontario?
  23. Would a self-designated trust based on the common law threshold for capacity be flexible enough to meet the needs of RDSP beneficiaries in Ontario?
  24. Could a streamlined court process to appoint a trustee as a legal representative for RDSP beneficiaries be integrated into the Superior Court of Justice’s existing jurisdiction over trusts?
  25. Could an Ontario government agency be charged with approving a deed of trust for the specific purpose of establishing a legal representative for RDSP beneficiaries? If so, which government agency would be suitable?
  26. Could an Ontario government agency administer an appointment process for the specific purpose of establishing a legal representative for RDSP beneficiaries? If so, which government agency would be suitable?
  27. How would a government agency administered process for the specific purpose of establishing a legal representative for RDSP beneficiaries operate? Could it draw on knowledge of existing programs, such ODSP trustee appointments?
  28. Should a government agency appointment process for the specific purpose of establishing a legal representative for RDSP beneficiaries be based on an assessment of capacity or an adult’s need for assistance in RDSP decision-making?
  29. How would the options for reform in the choice of arrangements meet the benchmarks for reform in this project (see Chapter I.C.2, Benchmarks for Reform, beginning page 5)?
  30. Are there options for reform in the choice of arrangements that are to be preferred over others? If so, why?
  31. Are there other options for reform in the choice of arrangements that were not identified in this discussion paper?
  32. How can an RDSP beneficiary’s meaningful inclusion in decision-making activities be ensured once a legal representative is appointed?
  33. Should an RDSP beneficiary with a legal representative be entitled to make decisions for him or herself, where possible?
  34. To what extent should a legal representative be required to consult with an RDSP beneficiary to determine his or her wishes and to obey an RDSP beneficiary’s instructions?
  35. How can legal representatives for RDSP beneficiaries be protected from liability where they have adhered to an expected standard of care?
  36. What measures could provide third parties with the certainty that they can reasonably rely on a decision-making arrangement for RDSP beneficiaries as one that is legally valid?
  37. Could awarding a legal representative the sole responsibility to enter into RDSP transactions promote certainty, finality and protection from liability for third parties?
  38. Should the scope of a legal representative’s authority be restricted to that of a plan holder with full or partial powers, or extend to assisting beneficiaries manage payments out of the RDSP?
  39. What are the implications of extending the scope of a legal representative’s authority beyond that of a plan holder?
  40. Could the scope of a legal representative’s authority affect the timely implementation of reforms in Ontario?
  41. Should eligibility to act as a legal representative for RDSP beneficiaries be extended to organizations? If so, what types of organizations would be suitable?
  42. Are supplementary safeguards that complement Ontario’s existing framework under the SDA needed in the context of the RDSP?
  43. What additional measures should be implemented to safeguard RDSP beneficiaries against financial abuse and the misuse of a legal representative’s powers?
  44. Are there ways to promote coherence between a process for the specific purpose of establishing a legal representative for RDSP beneficiaries and other laws in Ontario?
  45. Are there ways to create consistency in a process for the specific purpose of establishing a legal representative for RDSP beneficiaries across Canada?
  46. Do the options for reform raise implications for the implementation of effective reforms in the Ontario context that were not identified in this discussion paper?
  47. Do you have any other comments on this discussion paper or on the LCO’s project more generally?

 

Previous Next
 First Page Last Page
Table of Contents