When a loved one begins experiencing cognitive decline, families are often faced with difficult decisions about safety, healthcare, housing, and finances. These situations become even more complicated when family members disagree with caregivers, companions, or others involved in the person's life.
A recent court decision demonstrates that guardianship is not always an all-or-nothing proposition. In some circumstances, a court may determine that a person lacks capacity to make certain decisions while remaining focused on preserving as much independence as possible.
The decision in Groves v. Groves offers important lessons about capacity assessments, powers of attorney, guardianship applications, and protecting vulnerable adults.
Capacity Is Not an All-or-Nothing Determination
Many people assume that once a person is found incapable, they lose the ability to make all personal decisions.
That is not how the law generally works.
Capacity is often decision-specific.
A person may be capable of making some decisions while being incapable of making others.
For example, an individual may be able to:
- Express preferences;
- Participate in social activities;
- Maintain personal relationships; or
- Make certain day-to-day choices,
while being unable to safely make more complex decisions regarding:
- Housing;
- Medical care;
- Financial management; or
- Personal safety.
Courts therefore frequently focus on the specific decision that is creating concern rather than making broad declarations about every aspect of a person's life.
Powers of Attorney May Not Solve Every Problem
Many individuals assume that having a valid Power of Attorney for Personal Care will prevent future disputes.
While Powers of Attorney are powerful planning tools, they are not always enough.
In some situations, attorneys already possess legal authority to make decisions, but practical obstacles prevent them from exercising that authority.
This may occur when:
- Another individual interferes with decision-making;
- The incapable person is living with someone who opposes the attorney's decisions;
- Access to the person is restricted; or
- Care arrangements become contentious.
When those situations arise, attorneys may need court intervention to enforce or clarify their authority.
Courts Prefer the Least Restrictive Solution
A key takeaway from the decision is that courts generally prefer the least restrictive option available.
Guardianship can significantly limit a person's autonomy and legal rights.
For that reason, courts often ask:
- Is guardianship truly necessary?
- Is there a less restrictive alternative?
- Can existing Powers of Attorney address the problem?
- Is the proposed order broader than required?
The goal is to protect vulnerable individuals without unnecessarily removing their independence.
Where a narrower remedy can adequately address the problem, courts may choose that approach instead.
What Is Partial Guardianship?
Many people are unfamiliar with the concept of partial guardianship.
Unlike full guardianship, which can transfer extensive decision-making authority to a guardian, partial guardianship is limited to specific areas of concern.
A court may determine that a person requires assistance with only one aspect of their affairs.
Examples may include decisions relating to:
- Accommodation;
- Healthcare;
- Safety;
- Financial management; or
- Particular legal matters.
By tailoring the order to the specific problem, courts can balance protection with personal autonomy.
Living Arrangements Often Become the Central Issue
In many guardianship disputes, the primary concern is not finances but where the person should live.
As cognitive decline progresses, disagreements frequently develop over:
- Remaining at home;
- Moving to supportive housing;
- Entering assisted living;
- Receiving memory-care services; or
- Moving in with family members.
These decisions can become especially difficult when the person expresses preferences that may not align with their actual care needs.
Courts must then weigh the individual's wishes alongside evidence regarding safety, support requirements, and capacity.
Medical Evidence Remains Critical
Capacity disputes are often won or lost based on evidence.
Strong evidence may include:
- Capacity assessments;
- Medical records;
- Specialist opinions;
- Geriatric assessments;
- Caregiver observations; and
- Evidence regarding daily functioning.
Courts place significant weight on professional assessments that address not only whether a person understands information, but also whether they can appreciate the consequences of their decisions.
This distinction is important.
A person may be able to state a preference while still lacking the ability to assess the risks associated with that choice.
Courts Can Restrict Third-Party Interference
Another important lesson is that courts are willing to intervene where a third party interferes with the lawful authority of attorneys or guardians.
Interference can take many forms, including:
- Restricting family communication;
- Interfering with medical appointments;
- Preventing access to the incapable person;
- Making unauthorized decisions;
- Attempting to control finances; or
- Undermining care arrangements.
Where the evidence demonstrates ongoing interference, courts may issue orders designed to protect the vulnerable individual and preserve the authority of those legally authorized to make decisions.
The Importance of Early Planning
Many guardianship disputes can be reduced through proactive planning.
Important steps include:
Preparing Powers of Attorney Early
Planning while capacity remains intact generally provides the greatest flexibility.
Choosing Attorneys Carefully
The right attorney should be trustworthy, organized, and capable of making difficult decisions when required.
Discussing Future Care Preferences
Conversations about housing, healthcare, and support needs can help reduce uncertainty later.
Updating Estate Planning Documents
Regular reviews help ensure documents continue to reflect a person's wishes and circumstances.
The Bottom Line
Groves v. Groves demonstrates that courts do not automatically resort to full guardianship when concerns arise about an individual's capacity. Instead, courts carefully examine the specific decision-making issue, consider available alternatives, and seek solutions that are both protective and proportionate.
The decision is an important reminder that capacity is often decision-specific, that Powers of Attorney remain valuable tools, and that courts will take steps to protect vulnerable individuals when interference prevents appropriate care and decision-making.
MerGen Law is Here to Help You
At MerGen Law, we assist clients throughout Alberta with Powers of Attorney, Personal Directives, guardianship and trusteeship applications, capacity disputes, estate planning, and estate litigation. Whether you are concerned about a loved one's ability to make decisions or are navigating a dispute involving caregiving and capacity, we are here to help.
This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Individuals facing concerns about guardianship matters should seek professional advice tailored to their specific circumstances.