Often, a family will be in agreement that one of their members is incapable, but they will not agree as to who ought to be appointed as committee to handle that person’s affairs. The Court is often asked to decide between competing committeeship petitions – two (or more) people seeking to be appointed to manage the affairs and decision-making for the incapable family member (the “patient”). A very common scenario is one in which two siblings cannot agree as to who ought to be appointed as committee for an elderly parent. The Court will often observe that all parties love and want the best for the patient. They just disagree on what is “best.”

This was the case in the recent decision of the B.C. Supreme Court in Srikureka v. Srikureja 2022 BCSC 514. The patient was 85 years old and suffered from Alzheimer’s disease. She had seven children. Two of the children sought to be appointed as committee in place of the Public Guardian and Trustee (and they opposed each other’s petitions). One applicant child had the support of one other sibling. The other applicant child had the support of three other siblings.

The choice of committee is highly fact specific.  However, the following considerations are often taken into account in the assessment of the patient’s best interests:

1. whether the appointment reflects the patient’s wishes, when he or she was capable of forming such a wish;
2. whether immediate family members are in agreement with the appointment;
3. whether there is any conflict between family members or between the family and the patient, and whether the proposed committee would be likely to consult with immediate family members about the appropriate care of the patient;
4. the level of previous involvement of the proposed committee with the patient, usually family members are preferred;
5. the level of understanding of the proposed committee with the patient’s current situation, and will that person be able to cope with future changes of the patient;
6. whether the proposed committee will provide love and support to the patient;
7. whether the proposed committee is the best person to deal with the financial affairs and ensure the income and estate are used for the patient’s benefit;
8. whether a proposed committee has breached a fiduciary duty owed to the patient, or engaged in activity which diminishes confidence in that person’s abilities to properly handle the patient’s affairs;
9. who is best to advocate for the patient’s medical needs;
10. whether the proposed committee has an appropriate plan of care and management for the patient and his or her affairs and is best able to carry it out; and
11. whether a division of responsibilities such as between the patient’s estate and the patient’s person to different persons would serve the best interests of the patient, or would such a division be less than optimal for the patient.

The Court had to consider who should act as the committee of the patient’s estate (i.e. financial affairs) and the patient’s person (other decision-making).

Interestingly, the Court concluded that the Public Guardian and Trustee should remain as the committee of the patient’s estate. This was because neither of the children seeking to be committee had clearly distinguished between their personal funds and assets belonging to the patient. There was the possibility that upon further investigation, one or both of them owe the patient money, which would result in a conflict of interest if one of them was appointed as committee.

With respect to the committee of the patient’s person, the Court went through each applicable factor, and made a decision as to which child ought to be appointed. Certain factors supported each of the two children. One child had the support of more of the other siblings and was a medical doctor, but he lived out of town.  The other had cared for the patient in her home for over four years and was in town and better available to meet in person with doctors and caregivers. Both would have offered love and support to the patient.

Ultimately, the Court appointed the child who lived in town and had more than four years of recent experience caring for the patient in her home. The Court did impose conditions on the appointment, which included consultation and communication with the committee’s siblings.