In British Columbia, the Patients Property Act allows a person to apply to Court for a declaratory Order that another adult person is incapable of managing his or her affairs. Such incapacity may be due to mental infirmity arising from disease, age or otherwise, or disorder or disability of mind arising from the use of drugs. To succeed, the applicant must submit to the Court affidavits from two medical practitioners providing opinions that the person who is the subject of the application is incapable of managing his or her affairs.
If the Court is satisfied by the two affidavits and any other evidence, the applicant or someone else will be appointed “committee” to make decisions on behalf of the person, now referred to as the “patient”, concerning his or her financial and estate affairs or person or both. Also, a person who has been subject to examination at a Provincial mental health facility or psychiatric unit may become a “patient” if the Director signs a Certificate of Incapability. For example, in Johnston Estate v. Johnston, 2019 BCSC 2149, the patient was willingly examined at a psychiatric unit and the Public Guardian and Trustee was appointed committee of his financial and legal affairs. When a committee is appointed, powers of attorney and representation agreements previously signed by the patient are suspended.
What If the Person Does Not Co-operate?
For many years it was accepted that the Patients Property Act did not give the Court jurisdiction to order a medical examination before two medical affidavits had been produced. In other words, if the proposed patient would not co-operate and agree to be examined, the applicant was out of luck. Then in 2012 the door was opened to ordering an adult person to attend for medical examinations for the purposes of the Patients Property Act in appropriate circumstances.
In Temoin v Martin, 2011 BCSC 1727, the Court addressed a situation where the elderly businessman who was the subject of the application refused to be examined by two medical practitioners and the applicant, his daughter, was unable to obtain the necessary affidavits. The daughter argued that there was an inadvertent gap in the legislative scheme, namely that there was no statutory means by which a court could compel an individual to undergo the necessary medical assessments to determine capacity. She relied on Supreme Court of Canada judgements saying the Court had inherent discretionary jurisdiction, which was not derived from a statute, to make orders to protect the interests of children and vulnerable adults.
The judge agreed that if there was prima facie proof of incompetence and a compelling need for protection the inherent jurisdiction would extend to ordering a person to attend for medical examination, but Temoin was not such a case. The Court of Appeal agreed: 2012 BCCA 250, pointing out that the starting point for such an application was the presumption of capacity of the person to be protected, the importance of the Charter values of liberty, autonomy, and equality, while emphasizing that the inherent jurisdiction must be used cautiously and only for the benefit of the person to be protected, and not for anyone else. The daughter’s motive of trying to gather evidence with which to attack her father’s recent estate planning was a relevant consideration when assessing her evidence. In cases of this kind, the applicant must present evidence establishing a serious question to be tried, both as to the capacity of the individual and his or her need for protection.
After Temoin, applications were made to compel unwilling adults to undergo mental capacity testing but none were successful until 2017 when the case of Singh (Re) became the first successful Temoin application: 2017 BCSC 984. In the Singh case, unlike in Temoin, the judge was satisfied that a medical opinion from the family doctor and evidence of questionable financial dealings raised serious questions as to both mental capacity and the need for protection, so the order was made.
So far, there have been no other reports of successful Temoin applications. Thus, while the door has opened to ordering an adult person to attend for medical examinations for the purposes of the Patients Property Act, it is not wide open. Nevertheless, Singh demonstrates that such orders are available if the applicant is able to present the right kind of evidence, even over the objections of the person to be protected and anyone else who opposes. Hopefully, this will provide helpful guidance for families struggling to deal with uncooperative or alienated loved ones who refuse the medical examinations needed so orders to protect them can be obtained.