Source: https://www.lco-cdo.org/en/our-current-projects/legal-capacity-decision-making-and-guardianship/final-report/endnotes/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 10:09:57+00:00

Document:
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].
 Law Commission of Ontario, Legal Capacity, Decision-making and Guardianship: Interim Report (Toronto: October 2015), online: http://lco-cdo.org/en/capacity-guardianship-interim-report [LCO, Interim Report].
 For a brief overview of this law reform process, see LCO, Legal Capacity and Decision-making Discussion Paper, note 3.
 LCO, RDSP Final Report, note 2.
Fram Report, note 14, vii.
Fram Report, note 14, 39-47.
 SDA, note 8, s. 2; HCCA, note 7, s. 4(2).
 HCCA, note 7, ss. 10, 40.
 SDA, note 8, s. 3; HCCA, note 7, s. 81.
 SDA, note 8, ss. 32(1), 38.
 SDA, note 8, ss. 66(2)-(3).
 SDA, note 8, ss. 32(2)-(5).
 Information on this project may be found online at http://www.lco-cdo.org/en/last-stages-of-life.
 Some proponents of supported decision-making have proposed that government should have a role to play in fostering support relationships or (for some proponents) in providing paid supports that can approximate this kind of intimate and trusting relationship. 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.
 Webb v Webb, 2016 NSSC 180 (CanLii) 6 [Webb].
 SDA, note 8, s. 78.
 SDA, note 8, ss. 22(3) and 55(2).
 SDA, note 8, ss. 32(3), 66(3), (4), and (5); HCCA, note 7, s.21.
 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 8, s. 50; HCCA, note 7, s. 32(2).
 HCCA, note 8, s. 1.
 See for example the description of the purposes of supported decision-making: Adult Protection and Decision-making Act, S.Y. 2003, c. 21, Sched. A, [Adult Protection and Decision-making Act], s. 4.
 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 43, s. 2; Mental Capacity Act 2005, (UK), c. 9, [Mental Capacity Act], s. 1; Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) 2015, No. 64 of 2015, Minister for Justice and Equality (July 13, 2012), [Irish Act 2015], s. 8.
 Information about the Ontario Government’s Open Government initiative can be found online at https://www.ontario.ca/page/open-government. On April 14, 2016, the LCO co-hosted, with Legal Aid Ontario and the Canadian Forum on Civil Justice, a forum on Open Data in the Justice System.
 Open by Default (March 2014), online: https://www.ontario.ca/page/open-default-new-way-forward-ontario.
 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 [Pinto Report].
 Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 11 [AODA], s. 41.
 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, [Laschewicz] 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.
 HCCA, note 7, s. 4.
 SDA, note 8, 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.
 CRPD, note 27, Article 1.
 Irish Act 2015, note 45, s. 3.
 A decision-making assistance agreement may be made by a person who understands “the information as to the effect of making the appointment”. The assistant may obtain relevant information, provide advice to the appointer by explaining relevant information or considerations, ascertain the will and preference of the appointer and assist the appointer in communicating this, assist the appointer to make and express a decision, or assist in the implementation of a decision. The decision is that of the appointer. Irish Act 2015, note 45, s. 14.
The supporter may assist the person in obtaining information, understanding information and alternatives, and in implementing decisions. Capacity and Guardianship (Amendment No. 18) Law, 5776-2016, s. 30, adding section 67B.
 AGTA, note 44, s. 13; Adult Guardianship and Co-Decision-making Act, note 44, ss. 13, 39.
 Irish Act 2015, note 44, Part IV.
 Advocacy Centre for the Elderly, written submission to the LCO, October 17, 2014, [ACE Submission Legal Capacity 2014], 8.
 Coalition on Alternatives to Guardianship, written submission to the LCO, March 14, 2016,[Coalition Submission 2016] 3.
 Coalition Submission 2016, note 75, 2.
 The full figures for 2013-2014 are included in LCO, Legal Capacity and Decision-making Discussion Paper, note 3, 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.
 SDA, note 8, ss. 33(1), (2), (3).
 General Comment, note 67, para 8.
 The General Comment (note 67) 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.
 Adult Protection and Decision-Making Act, note 43, ss. 5(2), 11; AGTA, note 44, s. 6(2).).
 Advocacy Centre for the Elderly, written submission to the LCO on the Interim Report, March 3, 2016, [ACE Submission Legal Capacity 2016] 4.
 Coalition on Alternatives to Guardianship, Brief, note 31, 26.
 Human Rights Code, note 87, s. 47(2).
 Ontario Human Rights Commission, Policy on Preventing Discrimination on the Basis of Mental Health Disabilities and Addictions (Toronto: June 18, 2014), online: http://www.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default/files/Policy%20on%20Preventing%20discrimination%20based%20on%20mental%20health%20disabilities%20and%20addictions_ENGLISH_accessible.pdf, 69.
 Written submission of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons to the LCO, March 21, 2016, 3.
 Communication Disabilities Access Canada, written submission to the LCO, October 2015.
 Canadian Bankers Association, written submission to the LCO, March 4, 2016, [Canadian Bankers Association] 2.
 Human Rights Code, note 87, O. Reg. 290/98, Business Practices Permissible To Landlords In Selecting Prospective Tenants For Residential Accommodation.
 City of Toronto, Stakeholder Consultation Results, Reforms to Ontario’s Legal Capacity, Decision-making and Guardianship Laws: Implications for Toronto’s Vulnerable Residents and the Service Providers Who Support Them (May 16, 2016) [City of Toronto, Stakeholder Consultation Results] 5.
 MAG, Guidelines, note 62, Section III.2 and VII.2.
 MAG, Guidelines, note 62, Section VI.
 SDA, note 8, ss. 33(3),(4), (5); 66(5),(6),(7), (8).
 SDA, note 8, ss. 66(2.1), (3), (4).
 SDA, note 8, ss. 66(8) and (9).
 HCCA, note 7, s. 21.
 SDA, note 7, s. 37.
 SDA, note 7, s. 31(1).
 See for example, Laschewicz, note 59.
 Tal Cahana and Dr. Shira Yalon-Chamovitz, Article 12 Supported Decision-making Pilot, Study of Assessment Study Findings (December 2015) [Cahana & Yalon-Chamovitz].Cahana & Yalon-Chamovitz, 47. There have been a number of small scale pilot projects examining supports for decision-making. Most focused on persons with intellectual disabilities, although some also included persons with psychosocial disabilities, acquired brain injury or autism. None of the pilot projects included persons with dementia. Some focused on persons with existing supports, while others centred on socially isolated individuals. Many examined the possibilities for strengthening positive decision-making practices within the context of existing guardianship orders, while some excluded persons under guardianship. See Margaret Wallace, Evaluation of the Supported Decision Making Project, Final Independent Evaluation (Office of the Public Advocate, South Australia: November 2012) [Office of the Public Advocate]; Gill Westhorp, Supported Decision Making Program 2014-2015: Evaluation Report (Health & Community Services Complaints Commissioner South Australia), online: http://www.hcscc.sa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HCSCC-SDM-Project-2015-Evaluation-Report1.pdf; ACT Disability, Aged and Carer Advocacy Service (ADACAS), Spectrums of Support: A Report on a Project Exploring Supported Decision making for People with Disability in the ACT (September 2013), online: http://www.adacas.org.au/decision-support/copy_of_SupportedDecisionMakingProjectFinalReport.pdf [ADACAS 2013]; Kate Rea and Fiona May, Self Determination and Cultural Change: A Report on Supported Decision Making for People Experiencing Psychosocial and Intellectual Disability 2014), online: http://www.adacas.org.au/decision-support/ADACAS_recommendations_SDM_psychosocial_and_intellectual_disabilty.pdf [ADACAS 2014]; Westwood Spice, My life, my decision – an independent evaluation of the Supported Decision Making Pilot (New South Wales Department of Family and Community Services: April 2015), online: https://www.adhc.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/file/0009/346194/sdm_pilot_project_evaluation_report.pdf [Westwood Spice];.
 See for example, Office of the Public Advocate, note 107, 51; ADACAS 2013, note 107, 33-40; ADACAS 2014, note 107, 15; Westwood Spice, note 107.
 See for example Cahana & Yalon-Chamovitz, note 107, 47.
 LCO, Legal Capacity and Decision-making Discussion Paper, note 3, Part III, Ch1.D.2.
 For an outline of Alberta’s supported decision-making authorizations see LCO, Legal Capacity and Decision-making Discussion Paper, note 3, 126-128.
 James & Watts, note 110, 57-62.
 City of Toronto, Stakeholder Consultation Results, note 94, 5.
 The Report did identify as a secondary option the use of the more flexible criteria adopted in British Columbia’s Representation Act: however, the broader scope of these proposed support authorizations, the multiple safeguards built into the RDSP program itself, and the potential lack of the basic oversight provided in the RDSP context by interaction with a financial institution makes such criteria less appropriate in the broader context of this project. LCO, RDSP Final Report, note 2, section IV.C.3.
 AGTA, note 44, s. 4(2); Adult Protection and Decision Making Act, note 43, s. 5(1), Irish Act 2015, note 44, s. 14(1).
 Adult Protection and Decision Making Act, note 43, s. 5(1), Irish Act 2015, note 44, s. 14(1).
 Irish Act 2015, note 44, s. 11.
 Adult Protection and Decision Making Act, note 43, ss. 5(2), 11, AGTA, note 44, s. 6(2).
 As defined by Ministry of Community and Social Services, person-directed planning “helps people with a developmental disability prepare life plans that lay out their distinct needs and goals. These plans can help them make the most out of funding and outline ways they can participate in community activities”: online: http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/en/mcss/programs/developmental/servicesupport/person_directed_planning.aspx.
 Nunnelley, Personal Support Networks, note 124, 103.
 HCCA, note 7, s. 10.
 Canadian Bankers Association, note 91.
 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 9, s. 54(6).
 MHA, note 9, s. 54(2).
 MHA, note 9, s. 57(2).
 MHA, note 9, s. 54(4).
 SDA, note 8, s. 15.
 See Roy v Furst,  OJ 1490 (SCJ), in this decision, 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.
 This is indicated by the use of binding language (“a physician shall examine” as opposed to “the physician may examine”): MHA, note 9, s. 54(1).
 MHA, note 9, s. 59(1).
 MHA, note 9, s. 59(2).
 MHA, note 9, s. 60(1).
 SDA, note 8, s. 16(1).
 SDA, note 8, s. 79.
 SDA, note 8, 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.
 Capacity Assessment Reg, note 148, ss. 3(1)-(2).
 Capacity Assessment Reg, note 148, s. 3(3).
 SDA, note 8, ss. 78(1)-(3).
 SDA, note 8, ss. 78(5), 16(4).
 SDA, note 8, ss. 16(5)-(6).
 SDA, note 8, 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.
 Hiltz & Szigeti, note 155, 194. It should be noted that the cost of long-term care is regulated, and may be subsidized.
 HCCA, note 7, s. 2.
 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 62, 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).
 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 155, citing I.L.A. (Re), 2004 CanLII 29716 (ON CCB).
 HCCA, note 7, ss. 50(1)-(2).
 HCCA, note 7, s. 4(3).
 HCCA, note 7, s. 15(1).
 HCCA, note 7, s. 15(2).
 MHA, note 9, ss. 38, 59.
 HCCA, note 7, s. 32.
 Abrams, note 171, para. 50.
 See, for example, Koch (Re), note 163, 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.
 Verma & Silberfeld, note 173, 41.
 ARCH Disability Law Centre, written submission to the LCO, March 4, 2016 [ARCH Submission 2016] 8.
 Olders, note 174, 283 – 284.
 In Koch (Re), note 163, 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.
 Saunders, note 160, para 18.
 Wahl, Dykeman & Gray, note 184, 260 – 261; Judith Wahl, Mary Jane Dykeman and Tara Walton, Health Care Consent and Advance Care Planning Tools, Policies and Practices: The Challenge to Get it Right (Toronto: Law Commission of Ontario, November 2016) [Wahl, Dykeman & Walton], forthcoming.
 OBIA Submission, note 183, 2.
 Wahl, Dykeman & Gray, note 184, 263-264.
 [ACE Submission Legal Capacity 2014], note 74, 9.
 HCCA, note 7, s. 17.
 College of Occupational Therapists of Ontario, Consent, note 167, 1.6 and 1.7.
 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 167, 12.
 For example, College of Respiratory Therapists, “Responsibilities Under Consent Legislation”, note 167, 15; CASLPO, Obtaining Consent, note 167, 12 “The CASLPO member has an obligation to inform the patient/client in a manner appropriate to the patient/client’s capacity”.
 See, for example, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Consent to Treatment, note 167, 7; CASLPO, Obtaining Consent, note 167, 12, College of Dieticians, “Guidelines”, note 167, 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 167, Appendix B: Advocating for Clients).
 For example, neither the College of Physicians and Surgeons Consent to Medical Treatment, note 167, 7 or the College of Nurses of Ontario’s Practice Guideline: Consent, note 167, provides any exceptions with respect to informing the incapable person of the finding and its consequences.
 For example, College of Respiratory Therapists, “Responsibilities Under Consent Legislation”, note 167, 15.
 College of Dieticians, “Guidelines”, note 167, 4.
 College of Respiratory Therapists of Ontario, “Responsibilities under Consent Legislation”, note 163.
 College of Physicians and Surgeons, Consent to Medical Treatment, note 167, 7. See also CNO, Practice Guideline: for Consent, note 167, which requires the nurse to use “professional judgment to determine the scope of advocacy services to assist the client in exercising his/her options”.
 Written submission to the LCO by the Mental Health Legal Committee, November 28, 2014, [MHLC Submission 2014] 9-10.
 VLRC, Final Report, note 45, Ch. 15, 318.
 HCCA, note 7, s. 7; R. v. Thomas, 2000 CarswellOnt 1173;  OJ No 1308; 46 WCB (2d) 59, para 4.
 MHA, note 9, s. 20.
 LTCHA, note 46, s. 32.
 HCCA, note 7, ss. 53.1, 54.2.
 Mental Capacity Act, note 44, Sched. A.1, “Hospital and Care Home Residents: Deprivation of Liberty”.
 VLRC, Final Report, note 45, Ch. 15.
 MAG, Guidelines, note 61, I.2.
 ARCH Submission 2016, note 178, 8.
 AGTA, note 44; Alta Reg 219/2009, s. 3(1)(a).
 AGTA, note 44; Alta Reg 219/2009, s. 4(2)(a).
 Written submission of the College of Audiologists and Speech Language Pathologists, March 3, 2016, 3.
 Tobin Tyler, note 229, 84.
 Tobin Tyler, note 229, 81.
 LTCHA, note 46, s. 3(3).
 ACE, Congregate Living, note 238, 18-20, 47, 111.
 LTCHA, note 46, ss. 141-143.
 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 243, 2.
 ARCH Submission 2016, note 178, 5.
 Quality Assurance Measures, O.Reg. 229/10, ss. 5.
 SDA, note 8, ss. 10(2), 48(2).
 Saskatchewan, Powers of Attorney Act, note 256, s. 12(1).
 Power of Attorney Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c 370, s. 17 [B.C. Powers of Attorney Act].
 Joffe & Montigny, note 28, 107.
 B.C. Powers of Attorney Act, note 259, s. 17.
 Law Reform Commission of Nova Scotia, The Power of Attorney Act, Final Report, August 2015, [Nova Scotia LRC, Final Report] 88, online: http://www.lawreform.ns.ca/Downloads/Final_Report_Powers_of_Attorney_Act.pdf.
 Western Canada Law Reform Agencies, Enduring Powers of Attorney: Areas for Reform (March 2008) 56.
 Nova Scotia LRC, Final Report, note 263, 175.
 SDA, note 8, s. 42.
 For example, in the United Kingdom, appointed deputies are required to regularly submit accounts to the Public Guardian and Trustee: COP, note 228, 8.66.
 Joffe & Montigny, note 28, 102-103.
 Joffe & Montigny, note 28, 103-104.
 Mental Capacity Act, note 44, ss. 49, 58, 61.
 Guardianship and Administration Act, note 276, s. 224.
 Guardianship and Administration Act, note 276, s. 224(3).
 Guardianship and Administration Act, note 276, s. 227.
 ACE, Congregate Living, note 238, 88 and following.
 Representation Agreement Act, note 281, s. 16.
 Manitoba, Powers of Attorney Act, note 255, s. 22.
 New York, General Obligations Law, 5-1509.
 Nova Scotia LRC, Final Report, note 263, 185.
 Legal Information Institute, “Trust Protector,” Cornell University Law School, online: https://www.law.cornell.edu/search/site/trust%20protector (last accessed: 1 June 2016).
 Matthew Conaglen and Elizabeth Weaver, Protectors as Fiduciaries: Theory and Practice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) [Conaglen & Weaver]; Susan Cancelosi, Nina A Kohn, Barry Kozak and others, “Teaching Trust & Estates and Elder Law: Pedagogy for the Future” (2012-2013) 117 Penn St L Rev 987; Philip J Renaud, “Protectors in Domestic Trusts” (2007-2008) 27 Est Tr & Pensions J 241; Adam S Hofri- Winogradow, “The Stripping of Trust: A Study in Legal Evolution” (2015) 65 UTLJ 1, 1-47.
 Susan Cancelosi, Nina A Kohn, Barry Kozak and others, “Teaching Trust & Estates and Elder Law: Pedagogy for the Future” (2012-2013) 117 Penn St L Rev 987.
 Conaglen & Weaver, note 287.
 ACE Submission Legal Capacity 2014, note 74, 9.
 HCCA, note 7, s. 53(1).
 HCCA, note 7, s. 53(2).
 HCCA, note 7, ss. 50, 65.
 SDA, note 8, s. 20.2.
 HCCA, note 7, ss. 33, 51, 66.
 HCCA, note 7, ss. 35, 53, 68.
 HCCA, note 7, ss. 37, 54, 69.
 HCCA, note 7, ss. 35, 52, 67.
 HCCA, note 7, ss. 34, 53.1, 54.2. Note that the provisions with respect to secure units are not yet in force.
 Communication from the Consent and Capacity Board, June 8, 2016.
 HCCA, note 7, s. 75.
 HCCA, note 7, s. 70.1.
 HCCA, note 7, s. 80.
 SDA, note 8, ss. 39(4), 68(4).
 SDA, note 8, ss. 42(7)-(8).
 MHLC Submission 2014, note 207, 7.
 Joffe & Montigny, note 28, 108.
 Written submission to the LCO, March 4, 2016.
 MHLC Submission 2014, note 207, 6.
 Mental Health Legal Committee, written submission to the LCO, March 4, 2016, [MHLC Submission 2016] 7.
 MHLC Submission 2016, note 315, 7.
 Saara L. Chetner “Can’t Buy Me Love: Lessons Learned from High Conflict Guardianships In Ontario”, Conference Paper, 2010 Canadian Conference on Elder Law (October 29, 2010) online: http://www.lco-cdo.org/en/ccel-2010-papers [Chetner].
 LTCHA, note 46: 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.
 LTCHA, note 46; Services and Supports to Promote the Social Inclusion of Persons with Developmental Disabilities, 2008, S.O. 2008, c. 14.
 Joffe & Montigny, note 28, 104.
 Joffe & Montigny, note 28, 62-63.
 LCO, Increasing Access to Family Justice, note 329, 24-25. There are ongoing initiatives to improve family law processes, although issues remain.
Richard Moorhead, Mark Sefton and Lesley Scanlan, Just Satisfactiom? What Drives Public and Participant Satisfaction with Court and Tribunal Processes, A Review of Recent Evidence (November 14, 2007) 89.
 VLRC, Final Report, note 45; QLRC R67, note 56, Chapter 20.
 VLRC, Final Report, note 45, 485.
 LCO, Increasing Access to Family Justice, note 329.
 Council of Australasian Tribunals, International Framework for Tribunal Excellence (April 2014) 18.
 City of Toronto, Stakeholder Consultation Results, note 94, 9.
 ACE Submission 2016, note 85, 13, also see MHLC Submission 2016, note 315, 6.
 Andrew Leggatt, Tribunals for Users: One System, One Service, Report of the Review of Tribunals, March 2001, para. 1.2 [Leggatt Report].
 Statutory Powers Procedures Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 22.
 The Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Administration Act, S.O. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 55, s. 1.
 Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Attorney General),  3 SCR 31, at para. 29, per McLachlin C.J.
 Re Residential Tenancies Act,  1 S.C.R. 714; Crevier v. Quebec (Attorney General),  2 S.C.R. 220.
 Patrick J. Monahan and Byron Shaw, Constitutional Law, 4th Edition, (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2013) 154 [Monahan & Shaw].
 Peter W. Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada (Toronto: Carswell, 2015) 7.49-7.50.
 Monahan & Shaw, note 352, 155.
 Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. c-46, s. 672.4(1).
 Competition Tribunal Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 19(2nd Supp), s. 3(2), 4(1).
 Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17, s. 177(1) [Residential Tenancies Act].
 Social Justice Tribunals, Annual Report 2013 – 2014, online: http://www.sjto.gov.on.ca/documents/sjto/2013-14%20Annual%20Report.html#ltb-2.
 Legal Aid Ontario, online: http://www.legalaid.on.ca/en/getting/dutycounsel_tenant.asp.
 ACE Submission Legal Capacity 2016, note 84, 15.
 Human Rights Code, note 87, ss. 45.2, 45.3.
 Residential Tenancies Act, note 358, s. 204(1).
 SDA, note 8, s. 88.
 ACE Submission 2016, note 85, 18.
 CCEL, Elder and Guardianship Mediation, note 370, 134.
 CCEL, Elder and Guardianship Mediation, note 370, Chapter 7.
 A helpful review of common forms of dispute resolution can be found in the Dispute Resolution Guide prepared by the Department of Justice of the Government of Canada, available online: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/dprs-sprd/res/drrg-mrrc/intro.html.
 Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, “Mediation” online: http://www.wsiat.on.ca/english/appeal/mediation.htm .
 Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, Rules of Procedure (May 2016) online: http://www.sjto.gov.on.ca/documents/hrto/Practice%20Directions/HRTO%20Rules%20of%20Procedure.html#15 [HRTO Rules].
 Safety, Licensing, Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario “Automobile and Accident Benefit Services” online: http://www.slasto.gov.on.ca/en/AABS/Pages/default.aspx; Safety Licensing, Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario. Rules of Practice and Procedure, 14.2, 20, online: http://www.sse.gov.on.ca/lat/english/Documents/Rules%20of%20Practice/LAT%20Rules%20of%20Practice%20and%20Procedure%20Version%201%20April%201%202016.pdf [SLASTO Rules].
 ACE Submission Legal Capacity 2016, note 84, 19.
 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 [CCB, Policy Guideline 2].
 CCB, Policy Guideline 2, note 382.
 Marshall Swadron, Representing the Incapable Client in Capacity Proceeeding, (Law Society of Upper Canada, 12 Annual Estates and Trusts Summit, November 13, 2009) [Swadron] 4-5.
 Written submission to the LCO from Jan Goddard, July 1 2016 [Goddard].
 Banton v Banton (1998), 164 D.L.R. (4th) 176 (Ont. Ct. Gen Div.), 218.
 ACE Submission 2016, note 85, 16.
 LAO, Legal Eligibility, note 394.
 LAO, Mental Health Strategy, note 391, 19.
 LAO, Mental Health Strategy, note 391, 38.
 Ziskos v. Miksche, 2007 CanLII 46711 (ONSC) , para 227, 229.
 Guardianship and Administration Act, note 285, s. 16.
 VLRC, Final Report, note 45, 447.
 VLRC, Final Report, note 45, 455.
 Guardianship and Administration Act, note 285, s. 180.
 Guardianship and Administration Act, note 285, s. 183(1).
 Guardianship and Administration Act, note 285, s. 193.
 QLRC R67, note 56, Vol 4, 176.
 Mental Capacity Act, note 44, s. 58(1).
 ACE Submission 2016, note 85, 14-15.
 SDA, note 8, ss. 39, 68.
 Capacity Assessment Reg, note 148, ss. 2(1)(a), 2(2).
 SDA, note 8, s. 78(2).
 Fram Report, note 14, 104.
 SDA, note 8, ss. 24, 57.
 SDA, note 8, s. 59.
 SDA, note 8, s. 70.
 SDA, note 8, s. 69.
 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 8, ss. 72, 77-78.
 SDA, note 8, ss. 72-77.
 SDA, note 8, ss. 25(1), 58(1).
 See for example, Covello v. Sturino  O.J. No 2306 158; Deschamps, note 176.
 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 8, s. 50; HCCA, note 7, s. 32(2).
 MAG, Guidelines, note 61, Part VI.
 Joffe & Montigny, note 28, 62.
 Deschamps, note 176, para. 11.
 Coalition on Alternatives to Guardianship, Brief, note 31, 28.
 Mental Capacity Act, note 44, c.9, s. 49.
 Guardianship and Administration Act, note 285, s 16(1)(d); VLRC, Final Report, note 45, 470.
 Human Rights Code, note 87, s. 44.
 Residential Tenancies Act, note 358, s. 201(1).
 A helpful overview can be found in Sebastien April and Mylene Magrinelli Orsi, Gladue Practices in the Provinces and Territories (Research and Statistics Division, Department of Justice Canada, 2013).
 Legal Services Society, Gladue Primer (February 2011), 6-7.
 “Gladue Report Services to expand in Ontario (June 27, 2014), online: http://www.legalaid.on.ca/en/news/newsarchive/1406-26_gladuereportservices.asp; “Legal Aid Ontario expands Gladue Funding”, March 12, 2015, http://www.legalaid.on.ca/en/news/newsarchive/1503-12_newgladuefunding.asp; “Gladue Report Services to Expand in Ontario’s North” (November 27, 2014), online: http://www.legalaid.on.ca/en/news/newsarchive/1411-25_gladuereportservices.asp.
 The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has made significant use of active adjudication in appropriate cases. See: Human Rights Code, note 87, s. 43(3); Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, Rules of Procedure, 1.6, 1.7, online: http://www.sjto.gov.on.ca/documents/hrto/Practice%20Directions/HRTO%20Rules%20of%20Procedure.html#1; Pinto Report, note 54, section 6(a).
 J.A. Jolowicz, “Taking a Reflective Turn: Non-Adversarial Justice and Mental Health Review Tribunals” (2011) 37 Monash UL Rev 81, 289.
 Pinto Report, note 54, section 6(a).
 R v LePage 2006 CanLII 37775 (ONCA) 22.
 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 44, Divisions 3 and 4.
 SDA, note 8, ss.27, 62.
 SDA, note 8, ss. 24(2.1), 55(2.2).
 The Public Guardian and Trustee Act, note 487, 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.
 Guardianship and Administration Act, note 285, ss. 61(1), 63(1).
 VLRC, Final Report, note 45, 243.
 AGTA, note 44, ss. 33(8), 54(7).
 Adult Guardianship and Co-Decision-making Act, note 44, s. 40(3).
 Joffe & Montigny, note 28, 98.
 Joffe & Montigny, note 28, 98-99.
 Joffe & Montigny note 28, 98.
 Joffe & Montigny note 28, 97-98.
 AGTA, note 44, s. 54(5).
 VLRC, Final Report, note 45, 192.
 VLRC, Final Report, note 45, 264.
 Irish Act 2015, note 44, s. 38(2).
 OPGT, Annual Report 2011 – 2012, note 495, 5.
 SDA, note 8, s. 17(4)-(5).
 SDA, note 8, ss. 24, 46(2), 57.
 ACE Submission Legal Capacity 2016, note 84, 11-12.
 California Professional Fiduciaries Act § 6510 [CPFA] § 6538(a).
 CPFA, note 533, § 6536.
 CPFA, note 507\, § 6580(c).
 CPFA, note 533, § 6538(b).
 CPFA, note 533, § 6560.
 CPFA, note 533, § 6561.
 CPFA, note 533, § 6518, 6520.
 Manitoba LRC, Regulating Professions, note 526, 19.
 Manitoba LRC, Regulating Professions, note 526, 24.
 Manitoba LRC, Regulating Professions, note 526, 48.
 CPFA, note 507, § 6510 [CPFA].
 Supporting Homeless Seniors, note 537.
 ACE Submission Legal Capacity 2016, note 84, 12.
 City of Toronto, Stakeholder Consultation Results, note 94, 11.
 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] 90, online: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/aging/PublicDocuments/wards_state_full_rep_11_15_07.authcheckdam.pdf.
 City of Toronto, Stakeholder Consultation Results, note 94, 12.
 LCO, RDSP Final Report, note 2, 66.
 ARCH Submission 2016, note 178, 13.
 Saskatchewan, Powers of Attorney Act, note 265, s. 8.
 Teaster and others, The Florida Public Guardian Programs, note 554, 11.
 Teaster and others, The Florida Public Guardian Programs, note 554, 10.
 Teaster and others, Public Guardianship After 25 Years, note 546, 91-92.
 Adult Guardianship and Co-decision-making Act, note 44, s. 30.
Teaster and others, Public Guardianship After 25 Years, note 546, 105.
 LCO, RDSP Final Report, note 2, section IV.D.1.
 Written submission to the LCO from ARCH Disability Law Centre, October 31, 2014, 7-9 [ARCH Submission 2014].
 Wahl, Dykeman & Gray, note 184, 250-53; Wahl, Dykeman & Walton, note 193, pinpoint cite.
 LCO, Framework for the Law as It Affects Older Adults, note 1, 159; LCO, Framework for the Law as It Affects Persons with Disabilities, note 1, 54.
 ARCH Submission 2014, note 566, 13.
 City of Toronto, Stakeholder Consultation Results, note 94, 4 and 12-13.
 Irish Act 2015, note 44, s. 95 (1)(a).
 Guardianship and Administration Act , note 285, s. 15(c).
 VLRC, Final Report, note 45, 448.
 Karen Cohl and George Thompson, Connecting Across Language and Distance: Linguistic and Rural Access to Legal Information and Services (Law Foundation of Ontario: December 2008), online: www.lawfoundation.on.ca.
 Joffe & Montigny, note 28, 100-101.
 VLRC, Final Report, note 45, 413.
 City of Toronto, Stakeholder Consultation Results, note 94, 14.
 Health Professions Procedural Code, note 586, s. 3(1).
 RHPA, note 531, s. 1.
 Tompkins & Paquette-Frenette, note 590, 60.
 College of Audiologists and Speech Language Pathologists, Consent Tool, online: https://members.caslpo.com/public/elearning/consent.html.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 6510
 § 6538
 § 6536
 § 6580
 § 6538
 § 6560
 § 6561
 § 6518
 § 6510