The struggle to live at home

Posted on June 20, 2017 by dignifiedcare

All Mrs. Childs children were appointed as attorneys under her Power of Attorney. As such they are fiduciaries and have to act according to her instructions and wishes not their own self-interest, This is formalised in the  Substitute Decision Act.

Her one main wish and instruction has been that she wants to live out her days in her home. It is not an unusual wish except that she has dementia.That said she is physically capable of living at home, does remarkably well there, and has the means to achieve her wish.

The Substitute Decision Act requires guardians and those appointed power of attorneys to follow capable wishes. My Mother, when capable repeatedly stated she wanted to live at home until death.

If there were no capable wish the Substitute Decision Act requires guardians and those appointed Power of Attorney to consider current wishes. My Mothers current wishes told to the capacity assessor in May of 2015 and later to a geriatric physician are to live in her home until death.

“I want to stay here as long as I can until I die. Have someone write it down.” and of going into a nursing home “I won’t go there…..” Mrs. Childs May 13, 2015

Of course if her home were unsafe that would still be in her interest – but her home was assessed and been found to be perfectly safe for her.

Never-the-less Micheal and Andrew did not appear to want Mom to remain at home through most of the hearings. Subsequent to the report where Mrs. Childs current wishes are listed and her house being asses as safe Michael writes “the Sand Lake residency and Caroline Childs care has to end” and “I believe that it is imperative that my mother be placed in a home” and “it is absolutely imperative to place my mother in the best retirement home possible”

The latter statement was a significant shift for Michael as previously he wanted Mom on the list for a public long-term care home. Private retirement home would be considered only if they did not charge more than public long-term care homes. That requirement cut out the most and certainly the best retirement homes even though Mom could easily afford them – if she wished to live in them.

Posted in Care, Fiduciary Duty, Legal issues, Power of Attorney | Leave a comment

Questions regarding Ontario’s Public Guardian

Posted on May 24, 2016 by dignifiedcare

Attached is the content of an email sent to the Attorney General of Ontario on September 16, 2015. No answer has been received.

I am finding the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) appears to operate in without clearly defined policies, procedures and regulations. The specific area of concern is in relation to Section 3 counsel. The PGT must hire Section 3 counsel for the incapable person – but once hired they seem to lend the entire weight of the government to Section 3 rather than protecting the integrity of the Substitute Decision Act and as a result ALL incapable persons in Ontario.

I recently wrote the PGT regarding my mothers Section 3 counsel billings. Specifically is it reasonable for Section 3 counsel bill my mother to prepare an affidavit and Property Management Plan for Bank of Montreal?

The answers I received suggest that the PGT has no policy on the matter. That said it seems to me that to prepare an affidavit and Management plan (as opposed to swearing them) requires the person to be a client. The interests of the bank and my mother are different. The bank is a profit making organization. My mother, or those who act for her, may want to get the most value for money. Acting for my mother and the bank at the same time seems to create opportunities for conflict of interest.

The bank is also not very clear as to how it’s very vaguely defined fee structure would apply. I have calculated fees as high as $239,000 over 5 years. BMO and the PGT have been asked repeatedly to clarify the fees. No answer has been forthcoming.

One are of concerns is that when the bank charges 3% when it takes asset in for management, 3% on top of any disbursements and an annual management fee of 0.6%. In the case of real property they could charge 3% of the value of the property to take it in, 0.6% management fee AND the 3% disbursement fee if they hire a property manager to carry out the physical management. That seems like double dipping to me.

Investment fees are similarly unclear. They do not define what constitutes investment advice ie is placing money in a money market fund investment advice? Does it apply only to equities? What is not unclear is the fees $8000/year minimum.

It is unclear how the Public Guardian defines best interest of the incapable person and unclear how they oversee Section 3 counsel.

What appears to be lacking is policy and regulation – and unless this is addressed thousands of people will fall into a policy black hole.

Posted in Attorney General, BMO, Law Reform, Legal issues, Public Guardian, Section 3 | Tagged , , | Leave a comment