A. Research Question
The right of a person to make her own decisions has been characterized as an essential aspect of citizenship in a liberal democratic country. However, disability—and sometimes, more importantly, public perception of the mental capacity of people with cognitive, mental and developmental disabilities—can present limitations on their ability to make decisions that reflect their true values and wishes. Supported decision-making legislation provides a framework for formal legal recognition of one or more of the people who are crucial to an adult’s decision-making processes, sometimes allowing them to speak on behalf of the adult. The approach is valued for significantly enhancing the self-determination and dignity of people with disabilities, allowing them to participate in decisions that impact their lives in circumstances where they might not otherwise have the legal or cognitive capacity to make decisions independently.
Internationally, British Columbia’s Representation Agreement Act is recognized as pioneering legislation, being one of the first legal regimes for supported decision-making. The Act was proclaimed in 2000, and since that time there has been little research published on the experience of using supported decision-making in British Columbia or the other Canadian jurisdictions which followed suit in creating legislation that recognized supported decision-making relationships. This paper summarizes our findings from a short research initiative on supported decision-making. The research engages people who have participated in supported decision-making—both professionally and personally—in order to enhance our understanding of how supported decision-making occurs in practice, within diverse communities. The goal of this research project is to share strategies and practices that enable supported decision-making to be an appropriate, effective and empowering tool. Many factors—such as the vulnerability of many of the people who make use of supported-decision-making in their daily lives, and the importance of protecting the right to self-determination—suggest a need for this inquiry.
This paper explores the lived experience of supported decision-making in Canada. Diverse communities have wisdom to offer that can help us to understand how supported decision-making can be best utilized, and how various programs and practices can be enhanced to make the approach more accessible, if not also safer, for different communities.
B. Research Scope
This research initiative involved three levels of inquiry:
- A review of legislation in Canada that addresses supported decision-making;
- Telephone interviews with key informants from British Columbia, Yukon, Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan who have professional or practice expertise in relation to the use of supported decision-making in those jurisdictions; and
- Interviews with people in British Columbia who have participated in supported decision-making personally, using representation agreements, including:
a. Supported decision makers—ie, individuals using supported decision-making to make their own decisions, and
b. Supportive decision-makers designated under representation agreements—including representatives and family caregivers
The time constraints of the funder required the research to be conducted in four months. As a result, this paper must be understood as an initial scoping of the issues involving some key practitioners and a small number of individuals with personal experience using supported decision-making. Our hope was to explore a number of issues in order to ascertain whether further inquiry is warranted, and to interview a much greater and broader sample of informants with personal experience using supported decision-making in a subsequent inquiry.
C. Overview of Findings
This section contains a brief summary of findings. More thorough discussion can be found in sections II to IV of this paper.
1. Review of Legislation
Five Canadian jurisdictions were included in this research: British Columbia, Yukon, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. These provinces and territories have all passed legislation that references supported decision-making. On review, while the Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability Act of Manitoba references support networks and supportive decision-making, there is no statutory regime for supported decision-making created through this Act. Research indicates, however, that supported decision-making occurs informally in the province, without statutory protection.
British Columbia is the only jurisdiction that has passed a self-contained statute addressing supported decision-making; in the three other jurisdictions supported decision-making is recognized in legislation that addresses both guardianship and supported decision-making.
Although supported decision-making is statutorily recognized in British Columbia, Yukon, Alberta and Saskatchewan, there is significant variety across jurisdictions. The three key differences are:
- How arrangements are put in place—particularly as to the extent to which court processes are required;
- Terminology—different terminology is used to refer to the supportive decision-makers, and sometimes the same term is used in different jurisdictions to denote a very different kind of relationship; and
- Scope of powers—particularly as to whether personal, health care and/or financial decisions may be included in the arrangement.
This brief summary covers these three issues. Greater detail on each jurisdiction is found in section II of this paper.
a. How Supported Decision-making Arrangements are Put in Place
In British Columbia and the Yukon supported decision-making relationships are exclusively created by agreement, without court intervention. In Alberta a kind of supportive decision-making is possible through either agreement or court order. In Saskatchewan formal supported decision-making is only possible with court intervention.
b. Terminology around Supported Decision-making in Canada
In British Columbia the supportive decision-maker is a called a representative; however, the same statute allows an adult to appoint a substitute decision-maker by agreement. Both decision-makers are called representatives, so strictly speaking a representative may be a substitute or supportive decision-maker, depending on the terms of the agreement. In the Yukon, the supportive decision-maker is called an associate decision-maker; however, the same statute allows an adult to appoint a substitute decision-maker by agreement and this decision-maker is also called a representative. So in Canada a representative could be a substitute or supportive decision-maker.
Under the Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act of Alberta, there are arguably two different kinds of supportive decision-makers: a supporter or a co-decision-maker. A supporter relationship is created by agreement via a document called a supported decision-making authorization, and appears on the face of the statute to create a relationship similar to the approach taken in British Columbia and the Yukon.
In Alberta and Saskatchewan there is generally greater court involvement in supported decision-making. In Alberta, a co-decision-maker may be appointed by the court in circumstances where the adult’s decision-making capacity is significantly impaired, and the adult would have capacity to make the personal decisions at issue if provided with support and guidance. The court must be satisfied that the adult consents to the order and appointed decision-maker. Capacity is determined by a court appointed capacity assessor.
In Saskatchewan the supportive decision-maker is called a co-decision-maker as well. However, on review of the legislation it is questionable to characterize the approach as creating an authentic supported decision-making relationship: the arrangement can only be put in place by order of the court, on application, and it is not clear that the adult whose autonomy is at issue may even be an applicant.
c. Scope of Powers
In terms of scope of powers, in British Columbia the supportive decision-maker may be granted the power to make decisions regarding personal care, routine management of the adult’s financial affairs, instructing counsel, and some health care decisions. There are specific exclusions in the statute regarding health care consent, including the use of physical restraints. In Yukon the statute is silent regarding the types of decisions that may be included in a supported decision-making agreement. In Alberta the authority of a co-decision maker is limited to personal decisions, but the meaning of “personal” appears to capture health care decision-making—only financial decisions seem to be excluded. In contrast the scope of powers covered by a supported decision-making authorization in Alberta is not limited by statute. In Saskatchewan powers are extremely broad, specifically including chemical and physical restraints.
2. Summary of Interviews with Key Expert Informants
We interviewed 20 key informants from Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and the Yukon. Experts from government, offices of the Public Guardian and/or Trustees, lawyers, advocates and members of non-profit organizations which support persons with intellectual disabilities were included in the process. A minimum of three interviews was held in each jurisdiction, with cross-representation. Interviews were conducted on a confidential basis and were very frank in nature. Below are some themes that emerged from the discussions. Underlying many of the themes is a lack of awareness of supported decision-making across sectors and communities.
a. There is a tension between people who understand supported decision-making as a system that supports and enables “everyday” or familial decision-making practices, and those who understand supportive decision-making as a specific legal framework. The former is well-acknowledged and agreed upon. The latter is a source of struggle and some difficulty. This philosophical difference appears to be the root of much of the confusion and worry about supported decision-making. On the whole, people who view supported decision-making as a formalization of everyday decisions seem less likely to worry about abuse or liability. For people who view it as a specific legal framework, implications of abuse, fiduciary obligation, liability and “what ifs” are more pervasive.
b. People do not even understand substitute decision-making, let alone supported decision-making. Supported decision-making is a good idea, but without focused, ongoing and excellent public and professional education, the systems matter little. Every single expert informant identified the lack of training and education across the professional and community spectrum about decision-making in general to be of primary concern.
c. Even if it is not well understood, or very often adopted, supported decision-making is an important option for se