COVID-19: Court appoints interim committee who proposes to keep mother out of care facility until health emergency subsidesCho (Re), 2020 BCSC 689 (CanLII)
While the B.C. Supreme Court is starting to hear certain limited non-urgent matters, for the most part the courts are still only hearing urgent and essential matters. We discussed what elder law and estate litigation matters might be considered “urgent” or “essential” in a previous post which can be found here.
The court recently heard such an urgent application in Cho (Re) 2020 BCSC 689, which arose as a result of COVID-19. In Cho, the petitioner sought a declaration that his mother was incapable of managing her affairs, and an order appointing him as committee to manage his mother’s affairs and person. His sister agreed that their mother should be declared incapable, but sought an order appointing her as committee instead of her brother. The two other siblings supported her appointment as committee.
The urgency arose because the siblings disagreed as to where their mother should reside and what arrangements should be in place for her care during the COVID-19 health emergency. The mother had been residing in a long term care home in the Vancouver area. In light of concerns with the mother staying in the care facility and risking exposure to COVID-19, she was removed from the care facility to reside with the respondent daughter. The daughter’s plan was for her mother to reside with her until the end of the health emergency. The petitioner brother disagreed with that approach, and wanted to move his mother to his residence for a two week quarantine, followed by re-evaluation, which left open the possibility that his mother could return to the care facility before the health emergency subsided.
The parties agreed that the court could make an interim order to deal with the urgent concerns, and deal with the dispute over who should be committee for the longer term at a later date.
The judge considered the merits of the competing committeeship applications, which is a fact specific inquiry where the court looks at a number of factors, including whether the appointment reflects the patient’s wishes (as expressed when they were capable), whether immediate family members are in agreement with the appointment or whether there is conflict between family members, and whether the proposed committee would be likely to consult with immediate family members for appropriate care of the patient.
After discussing each factor, the judge appointed the respondent daughter as interim committee. One of the most significant factors in favor of the daughter’s appointment was 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. In effect, the court agreed with the plan to keep the mother out of the care facility until the end of the COVID-19 health emergency, and appointed the person who advocated for this plan.
It is not unusual for siblings to have disputes over the care of their elderly and incapacitated parents, and for these disputes to end up before the courts. It is not surprising that a COVID-19 related dispute of this type has made its way before the courts.