Source: https://www.lco-cdo.org/en/our-current-projects/legal-capacity-decision-making-and-guardianship/funded-research-papers-legal-capacity-decision-making-and-guardianship/decisions-decisions-promoting-and-protecting-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-who-are-subject-to-guardianship/endnotes-52/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 10:03:18+00:00

Document:
Alan Borovoy, “Guardianship and Civil Liberties” (1982) 3 Health L. Can. 51-57.
 ARCH has written several law reform and policy papers on the topic of legal capacity, including: “Addressing the Capacity of Parties before Ontario’s Administrative Tribunals: Promoting Autonomy and Preserving Fairness” (2009); “Addressing the Capacity of Parties before Ontario’s Administrative Tribunals: A Practical Guide for Ontario Lawyers” (2009); “Embracing Supported Decision-Making: Foundations for a New Beginning” (2009). These papers can be accessed on ARCH’s website: www.archdisabilitylaw.ca.
 UN enable, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, online: http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?navid=14&pid=150 (last accessed: 14 November 2013).
 CCD-CACL Working Paper, UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Making Domestic Implementation Real and Meaningful (February 2011), online: http://www.ccdonline.ca/en/international/un/canada/making-domestic-implementation-real-and-meaningful-feb2011 (last accessed: 1 October 2013).
 Anna MacQuarrie, Making the Convention Real and Meaningful for people with intellectual disabilities and their families, online: http://www.ccdonline.ca/en/socialpolicy/poverty-citizenship/legal-protections/the-un-CRPD-making-the-convention-real (last accessed: 14 November 2013).
 Dulcie McCallum, “Up the Basics: the Right to Decide” in Council of Canadians with Disabilities, Celebrating our Accomplishments: A voice of our own, (Winnipeg, 2011) 145, 149.
 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 13 December 2006, 2515 UNTS 3 art 12.
 Amita Dhanda, “Legal Capacity in the Disability Rights Convention: Stranglehold of the Past or Lodestar for the Future” (2006-7) Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce 34.
 Robert D. Dinerstein, “Implementing Legal Capacity Under Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: The Difficult Road From Guardianship to Supported Decision-Making” (2012) Human Rights Brief 19, No. 2, 8.
 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Background conference document: Legal Capacity, 20-21, online: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc6documents.htm (last accessed: 14 November 2013).
 People with Disability Australia, Accommodating Human Rights: A Human Perspective on Housing, and Housing and Support, For Persons with Disabilities, (2010), 21, online: http://www.pwd.org.au/documents/pubs/AccommodatingHumanRights2003.pdf (last accessed: 18 November 2013).
 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Monitoring the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Guidance for Human Rights Monitors, Professional training series No. 17, (New York and Geneva, 2010), online: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Disabilities_training_17EN.pdf (last accessed: 8 November 2013).
 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, note 7, Preamble (n).
 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, note 7, Article 3.
 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, note 7, Article 16.
 Law Commission of Ontario, A Framework for the Law as It Affects Persons with Disabilities (Toronto: September 2012) 100.
 Law Commission of Ontario, note 16, 101.
 Law Commission of Ontario, note 16, 71.
 Law Commission of Ontario, note 16, 77.
 Law Commission of Ontario, note 16, 119-121.
 Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 30 [SDA].
 Law Commission of Ontario, Roles and Responsibilities of Adults, Legal Representatives and Third Parties (RDSP project), 2, (unpublished paper, 2013).
 Law Society of Upper Canada, Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 2.02(6); Ed Montigny, Notes on Capacity to Instruct Counsel (15 February 2011) online: http://www.archdisabilitylaw.ca/?q=notes-capacity-instruct-counsel-0 (last accessed: 20 December 2013).
 See Banton v. Banton,  O.J. 3528 (ON Gen Div.).
 D’Arcy Hiltz and Anita Szigeti, A Guide to Consent and Capacity Law in Ontario (LexisNexis, 2012) 24-25 (Hiltz and Szigeti).
 Hiltz and Szigeti, note 29, 25.
 SDA, note 22, s. 45.
 SDA, note 22, s. 15.
 SDA, note 22, s. 16(3) to 16(5).
 Also see related provisions in the Substitute Decisions Act: SDA, note 22, ss. 81 and 81.
 SDA, note 22, s. 16(2).
 If the PGT is of the opinion that the person is truly at risk of harm it can apply to the Superior Court, pursuant to s. 79(1) of the Substitute Decisions Act for an order compelling the person to submit to an assessment of his/her capacity; see SDA, note 22, s. 79(1); also see Regulation 460/05,Capacity Assessment, s. 3(1).
 SDA, note 22, s. 79(1).
 See SDA, note 22, ss. 79, 80, 81 and 82, 83 to 87.
 SDA, note 22, s. 81(3).
 SDA, note 22, s. 83 (1).
 See Urbisci v. Urbisci,  O.J. No. 4740; also Zheng v. Zheng,  O.J. No 2957.
 Abrams v. Abrams,  O.J. No. 5207 (Ont. S.C.J.).
 SDA, note 22, s. 16(5); it is worth noting that under the original version of the SDA, s. 16(1) to (7), upon an assessment being performed and a person being found incapable, an advocate was to meet with the person and explain that the person had the right to refuse the statutory guardianship of the PGT. Only once the person agreed to accept the guardianship of the PGT did the PGT become that person’s guardian of property.
 SDA, note 22, s. 16(6).
 SDA, note 22, s. 20.2(1)(a), 20.2(1)(b) and 20.2(3).
 SDA, note 22, s. 20.1(1).
 For example see SDA, note 22, ss. 24(2.1) & 57(2.2).
 E-mail interview (#1) of Dermot Moore (Litigation and Senior Client Counsel, Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee) (29 November 2013) (Moore Interview #1).
 SDA, note 22, s. 16.1(1).
 SDA, note 22, s. 17(1).
 SDA, note 22, s. 20.1.
 See Council of Canadians with Disabilities, “Federal Poverty Reduction Plan Must Address Disability Poverty”, Press Release, (18 November 2010), online: http://www.ccdonline.ca/en/socialpolicy/poverty/media-release-federal-poverty-reduction-plan-18nov2010 (last accessed: 23 December 2013).
 Moore Interview #1, note 49.
 Pursuant to the SDA, note 22, s. 18, the PGT must provide written reasons for a rejection of an application. If the applicant disputes the denial, the PGT must apply to the court to decide the matter.
 see Dermot Moore, “Recent Decisions in Guardianship Law” presented at Grave Consequences: Traps and Pitfalls in Contemporary Estates Law, Ontario Bar Association, Institute of Continuing Education (2010) 3; also see Farley v. Farley,  O.J. No. 3228 (Ont. S.C.J.).
 SDA, note 22, ss. 72, 74, 77.
 SDA, note 22, s. 22(3).
 Gray v. Ontario  O.J. No. 266, para 47.
 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, note 7, Article 12.
 SDA, note 22, s. 25(2).
 SDA, note 22, s. 26.
 SDA, note 22, ss. 69, 71, 73 & 75.
 SDA, note 22, s. 69. (2) & 73(1).
 SDA, note 22, s. 32(1).
 C.D. Freedman, “Misfeasance, Non Feasance and the Self-Interested Attorney,” (2010) 48 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 457-498, 458.. (Note although the article focuses on attorneys for property, the article treats attorneys and guardians as similar – see 462).
 SDA, note 22, s. 32(7) and 32(8).
 SDA, note 22, s. 32(2).
 SDA, note 22, s. 32(3).
 SDA, note 22, s. 32(10).
 SDA, note 22, s. 37.
 SDA, note 22, s. 32(6).
 O. Reg. 100/96 Accounts and Records of Attorneys and Guardians, s. 5.
 SDA, note 22, (original version prior to amendments of 1996), s. 41(1). In 1996 there was a major legislative overhaul of the substitute decision-making regime in Ontario. This included the repeal of the Advocacy Act, note 106, and amendments to the Substitute Decisions Act to remove any references to the Advocacy Act and to make other changes. See note 113 for the amending statute.
 See Luke Reid, “The CRPD and the SDA: Research Paper” (unpublished paper prepared for Ian Scott Scholarship, 2012), 84.
 SDA, note 22, S. 57(2.2).
 For example, the PGT reported acting as court ordered guardian of the person for 31 individuals in 2008-09 and 24 individuals in 2009-10. See Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, Annual Report, 2008-09, “Message from the Public Guardian and Trustee” (2009) 4; online: http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/family/pgt/2008report/MsgFromPGT.pdf (last accessed: 3 January 2014) (PGT Annual Report, 2008-09); and Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, Annual Report, 2009-10, “Message from the Public Guardian and Trustee,” (2010) 2 , online: http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/family/pgt/2009report/MsgFromPGT.pdf (last accessed: 3 Jan 2014) (PGT Annual Report 2009-10).
 SDA, note 22, s. 69(1), 69(3).
 SDA, note 22, s. 55(2).
 SDA, note 22, ss. 58(1), 58(2), 58(3) and 59(1), 59(2).
 See Doug Surtees, “How Goes the Battle?: An Exploration of Guardianship Reform,” (2012) 50:1 Alberta Law Review 115-27, para. 18 for a discussion of the experience in Alberta (Surtees).
 For an example from another jurisdiction see Surtees, note 86.
 SDA, note 22, s. 59(2).
 SDA, note 22, s. 66(11).
 SDA, note 22, s. 66(10)(a).
 SDA, note 22, s. 66(2).
 SDA, note 22, s. 66(2.1).
 SDA, note 22, s. 66(4.1).
 SDA, note 22, s. 66(15).
 SDA, note 22, s. 66(8).
 SDA, note 22, s. 66(5).
 SDA, note 22, s. 68.
 SDA, note 22, s. 68(3).
 SDA, note 22, s. 88.
 SDA, note 22, ss. 27 & 62.
 E-mail interview (#2) of Dermot Moore (Litigation and Senior Client Counsel, Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee) (27 December 2013).
 SDA, note 22, ss. 39(1) & 68(1).
 SDA, note 22 (original version prior to amendments of 1996), s. 39(2).
 Advocacy Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 26, s. 1 (Advocacy Act).
 Advocacy Act, note 106, s. 2 “Definitions”.
 Advocacy Act, note 106, s. 1.
 Advocacy Act, note 106, s. 19(2), 19(3).
 Advocacy Act, note 106, ss. 20(1) to 30(6).
 For example see SDA, note 22, (original version prior to the amendments of 1996), ss. 25(5), 62(5), 76(1).
 SDA, note 22 (original version prior to amendments of 1996), s. 76(4).
 See 36:1 Bill 19 Advocacy, Consent and Substitute Decisions Statute Law Amendment Act, 1995.
 Ombudsman Act, R.S.O. 1990, CO. 6 (Ombudsman Act).
 Ombudsman Act, note 114, ss. 14(1), 14(2), 17(1).
 Ontario Ombudsman, online: http://www.ombudsman.on.ca/investigations/selected-cases/2012/ Unaccounted-for (last accessed: 12 December 2013).
 Ontario Ombudsman, online: http://www.ombudsman.on.ca/investigations/selected-cases/2013/Discreditable-conduct (last accessed: 12 December 2013).
 Ombudsman Act, note 114, s. 14(1) and definitions, “governmental organization”. The Ombudsman is empowered to investigate decisions or acts of a government organization. Government organization is defined in the act as a ministry, commission, board or administrative unit of the government of Ontario.
 Ombudsman Act, note 114, s. 14(1), 14(2), 14(2,2), 17(1).
 Criminal Code, note 120, s. 334.
 Law Commission of Ontario, “Guardianship Paper” (unpublished paper, August 2013) see Chapter VI “Personal Appointments and the Problem of Abuse”, 12 (LCO Guardianship Paper, Chapter VI); Selina Lai, Final Report: Community Mobilization Empowering Seniors Against Victimization to the National Crime Prevention Centre of Canada Public Safety Canada (United Seniors of Ontario: March 2008), 11.
 Law Commission of Ontario, “Capacity of Adults with Mental Disabilities and the Federal RDSP” (unpublished paper, 18 November 2013) 133; also see LCO Guardianship Paper, Chapter VI, note 118, 12.
 ARCH’s experience with statutory guardianships of property is limited to those held by family members. ARCH does not have experience relating to guardianships held by a trust company.
 SDA, note 22, s. 16.1.
 Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M. 7, s. 57(2).
 SDA, note 22, s. 39(1).
 Roger J. Stancliffe, et al. “Substitute Decision-making and Personal Control: Implications for Self-Determination,” Mental Retardation, Vol. 38, no. 5, 407-41 (October 2000) 409.
 SDA, note 22, s. 32.
 SDA, note 22, s. 42.
 SDA, note 22, s. 39(3).
 Rules of Civil Procedure, O. Reg. 575/07 s. 6, Rule 75.1 (Rules of Civil Procedure).
 SDA, note 22, s. 37(1), (2), there is no clear provision stating that a guardian can spend an ‘incapable’ persons funds on litigation that opposes the ‘incapable’ person, but to the extent the guardian could argue that the action was intended to protect the ‘incapable’ person, it could be justified.
 See Rules of Civil Procedure, note 137, Rule 75.1 O./Reg. 43/05(2).
 SDA, note 22, s. 19.
service is denied or a third party refuses to recognise the informal role of the carer. See: Victorian Law Reform Commission, Guardianship: Final Report, (18 April 2012), 27, online: http://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/projects/guardianship-final-report (last accessed: 14 November 2013) (Guardianship: Final Report).
 The Department of Justice and Equality, Press Release: Minister Shatter and Minister Lynch Announce Publication of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, online: http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PR13000303.
 The Department of Justice and Equality, Speech by Minister for Justice, Equality & Defence at the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013: Consultation Symposium (25 September 2013), online: http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PR13000303; An Billeum Chinnteoireacht Chuidithe (Cumas), 2013 Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013 Explanatory Memorandum, online: http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2013/8313/b8313d.pdf. (Assisted Decision Making (Capacity) Bill 2013.
 The Department of Justice and Equality, Speech by Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence, note 144.
 In addition to the types of decision-making arrangements described here, the Bill includes provisions relating to Powers of Attorney and Wards of Court. We have described only those types of decision-making arrangements that may function in a similar manner to or instead of guardianship.
 Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, note 144, s. 10(1) and (11).
 Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, note 144, s. 11.
 Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, note 144, s.11.
 The Bill uses a “functional” test for capacity, which is described as follows: is the person unable to understand and retain the information relevant to the decision? Is he or she able to use that information to make the decision? Is he or she able to communicate that decision whether by talking, writing or using sign language, assistive technology or any other means of communication? Information must be communicated to the person in a way that is appropriate for his/her circumstances. See: Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, note 144, s. 3.
 Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, note 144, s. 17.
 Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, Explanatory Memorandum, 6, online: http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2013/8313/b8313d.pdf.
 Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, note 144, s. 17(3).
 Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, note 144, s. 10.
 Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, note 144, s. 21(3).
 Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, note 144, s.17(7).
 Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, note 144, s. 21(9)-(12).
 Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, note 144, s. 21(7).
 Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, note 144, s. 23(1).
 Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, note 144, s. 23(5).
 Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, note 144, s. 23. At s. 24(3) the Bill provides for a list of exclusions as to who may not act as a representative.
 Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, note 144, s. 24.
 Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, note 144, s. 23(9)-(10).
 Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, note 144, s. 24(7).
 Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, note 144, s.29(2).
 Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, note 144, s. 29(1) and 14(3).
 Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, note 144, s. 29(4).
 Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, note 144, s. 56(2).
 Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, note 144, s. 59.
 Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, note 144, s. 32.
 Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, note 144, s. 60.
 Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, note 144, s. 60(3)-(8).
 See, for example: Centre for Disability Law and Policy at the National University of Ireland Galway, Cautious Welcome for the Assisted Decision-Making Bill (18 July 2013), online: http://www.nuigalway.ie/about-us/news-and-events/news-archive/2013/july2013/cautious-welcome-for-the-assisted-decision-making-bill.html (last accessed: 14 November 2013). Inclusion Ireland, Inclusion Ireland welcomes long awaited Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill – Lunacy Act 1871 finally replaced, (17 July 2013), online: http://www.inclusionireland.ie/content/media/1062/inclusion-ireland-welcomes-long-awaited-assisted-decision-making-capacity-bill (last accessed: 14 November 2013).
 Centre for Disability Law and Policy at the National University of Ireland Galway et. al., Equality, Dignity and Human Rights: Does the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013 fulfil Ireland’s human rights obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities?, 3-4, online: http://www.nuigalway.ie/cdlp/documents/amendments_to_bill.pdf (last accessed 14 November 2013). (Equality, Dignity and Human Rights).
 Equality, Dignity and Human Rights, note 175, 5.
 Equality, Dignity and Human Rights, note 175, 7.
 Centre for Disability Law and Policy at the National University of Ireland Galway, A Submission to the Department of Justice and Equality on the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, (4 October 2013), unpublished, 22.
 A Submission to the Department of Justice and Equality on the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, note 180, 25.
 A Submission to the Department of Justice and Equality on the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, note 180, 27.
 A Submission to the Department of Justice and Equality on the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, note 180, 36.
 N.Y. Mental Hyg. Law, art 81.01, online: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/MHY/E/81 (last accessed: 14 November 2013) (N.Y Mental Hyg Law).
 N.Y. Mental Hyg. Law, note 184, art. 81.02(a) (2).
 N.Y. Mental Hyg. Law, note 184, art. 81.23(b).
 N.Y. Mental Hyg. Law, note 184, art. 81.36.
 N.Y. Mental Hyg. Law, note 184, art. 81.30.
 N.Y. Mental Hyg. Law, note 184, art. 81.31.
 N.Y. Mental Hyg. Law, note 184, art. 81.33.
 N.Y. Mental Hyg. Law, note 184, art. 81.39.
 Participants at the conference included disability organizations, lawyers, judges, mental health practitioners, social workers, psychologists and others working in the field of guardianship.
 The Guardianship Clinic, Cardozo School of Law, Guardianship in New York: Developing an Agenda for Change (2012), 6-7, online: http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/sites/default/files/GuardianshipReport.pdf (last accessed: 15 November 2013) (Guardianship in New York).
 Guardianship in New York, note 194, 13 .
 Guardianship in New York, note 194, 7-9.
 Guardianship in New York, note 194, 8.
 Guardianship in New York, note 194, 9.
 Guardianship in New York, note 194, 10.
 Guardianship in New York, note 194, 7.
 Guardianship and Administration Act, 1986, s. 22, online: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/gaaa1986304/ (last accessed: 14 November 2013) (Guardianship and Administration Act).
 Guardianship and Administration Act, note 201, s. 3.
 Plenary guardians have all the powers and duties which the plenary guardian would have if s/he were a parent and the represented person his or her child. Guardianship and Administration Act, note 201, s. 24.
 Guardianship and Administration Act, note 201, s. 46.
 Guardianship and Administration Act, note 201, s. 61(1).
 Guardianship: Final Report, note 142, 27.
 Guardianship and Administration Act, note 201, s.28.
 Guardianship and Administration Act, note 201, s.22(2)(a), 46(2)(a).
 Guardianship and Administration Act, note 201, s.35D.
 Office of the Public Advocate, online: http://www.publicadvocate.vic.gov.au/services/105/ (last accessed: 14 November 2013)(Office of the Public Advocate).
 Guardianship and Administration Act, note 201, see ss. 35D, 63(1).
 Guardianship and Administration Act, note 201, s. 61.
 Guardianship: Final Report, note 142, 42.
 Guardianship and Administration Act, note 201, s.80.
 Guardianship: Final Report, note 142, 408.
 Guardianship and Administration Act, note 201, s.15.
 Guardianship and Administration Act, note 201, s.16.
 Guardianship: Final Report, note 142, 446.
 Office of the Public Advocate, note 201.
 Guardianship: Final Report, note 142, 28.
 Guardianship: Final Report, note 142.
 Guardianship: Final Report, note 142, 413.
 Guardianship: Final Report, note 142, 413-414.
 Guardianship: Final Report, note 142, 414-415.
 Guardianship: Final Report, note 142, 416-417.
 Guardianship: Final Report, note 142, 417-423.
 Guardianship: Final Report, note 142, 455-456.
 Guardianship: Final Report, note 142, 459-460.
 Guardianship: Final Report, note 142, 460-461.
 Guardianship: Final Report, note 142, 461.
 Guardianship: Final Report, note 142, 462.
 Guardianship: Final Report, note 142, 423-24.
 Nina Kohn, Jeremy Blementhal, Amy Campbell, “Supported Decision-Making: A Viable Alternative to Guardianship?” (2013) Penn State Law Review 1111, 5 (Kohn, Blementhal & Campbell).
 Guardianship: Final Report, note 142, Chapter 9.
 Online: United Nations enable, http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=475 (last accessed: 7 October 2010).
 See Surtees, note 86; Also see discussion in Law Commission of Ontario, “Capacity of Adults with Mental Disabilities and the Federal RDSP,” Chapter V, “Developing an Alternative Process to Establish a Legal Representative for RDSP Beneficiaries”; Also see Michelle Browning, Report to Winston Churchill Memorial Trust of Australia (2010), 21, 26, 30, online: http://www.churchilltrust.com.au/media/fellows/Browning_Michelle_2010.pdf (last accessed: 2 November 2013).
 Representative Agreement Act [RSBC 1996] c. 405, ss. 4 and 7(1), (Representative Agreement Act).
 Representative Agreement Act, note 239, s. 7(1).
 Adult Guardianship Act [RSBC 1996] c. 6.
 Adult Guardianship and Co-Decision-Making Act, Chapter A-5.3 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2001, ss.14(1) (Adult Guardianship and Co-Decision Making Act).
 Adult Guardianship and Co-Decision-Making Act, note 242, ss. 17.
 Kohn, Blementhal & Campbell, note 235, 5.
 See Guardianship: Final Report, note 142.
 In 2008-09 the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) reported that staff with complex case loads had 130 active files and that the workload pressures and higher risk caseload had been increasing steadily for the last several years. The PGT reported a total of 10,320 total active cases in 2008-09 and 9, 960 property guardianships alone in 2009-10; see PGT Annual Report 2008-09, note 82, 2-3 and PGT Annual Report 2009-10, note 8, 2.

References: art 12
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art 81
 art. 81
 art. 81
 art. 81
 art. 81
 art. 81
 art. 81
 art. 81