Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 29 SEPTEMBER 2014

Powers Of Attorney For Personal Care: What Happens When The Attorneys Disagree?

Minden Gross LLP
Explore more from Minden Gross LLP

The recent Superior Court decision in McNutt v. Draycott illustrates what can happen when an elderly person nominates a number of his adult children as his attorneys for personal care and a disagreement arises among them as to what is in their father’s best interests.

CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
A. Irvin Schein
A. Irvin Schein
Author LinkedIn connections

The recent Superior Court decision in McNutt v. Draycott illustrates what can happen when an elderly person nominates a number of his adult children as his attorneys for personal care and a disagreement arises among them as to what is in their father's best interests.

In this case, Peter Draycott was a 94 year old man living in his own home with two of his children, Geoffrey and Yolis. His other two children, Daphne and Anthea, did not live with him. They were unhappy with the quality of care that he was receiving from Geoffrey and Yolis. They wanted Peter to be placed in a long term care facility. Geoffrey and Yolis disagreed.

All four adult children were named as attorneys in Peter's power of attorney for personal care.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

BLG At The SCC – What’s Coming In The Supreme Court’s Fall 2026 Sitting Schedule

The Supreme Court of Canada held its second annual ceremony marking the opening of the judicial year at its temporary home in the West Memorial Building, with Chief Justice highlighting the Court's increased caseload and architectural features. What significant constitutional and legal challenges will the Court address in its fall 2026 session, including cases on firearm regulations, Crown immunity, and vicarious liability?
CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Article

Ontario Court Bifurcates Class Action As Practical Approach To Onerous Discovery Demands

An Ontario court granted a motion to bifurcate liability and damages stages in a class action alleging $500 million in hidden fees, finding that extensive documentary production requests were disproportionate and not relevant to determining liability. The decision addresses proportionality concerns in class actions where defendants face onerous discovery demands spanning millions of transactions over a decade.
CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Bennett Jones LLP
Bennett Jones LLP
Article

The Supreme Court Of Canada Reviews Québec’s Bill 21

Québec's Bill 21, enacted in 2019, bans public sector workers from wearing religious symbols and is shielded from most Charter challenges by the notwithstanding clause. The Supreme Court of Canada is now reviewing this controversial law, with a ruling expected as early as November 2026 or later in 2027. Former Minister of Justice Arif Virani discusses the court's struggle to balance competing constitutional principles in this landmark case.
CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Torys
Torys
Article

The Coldcard Exploit: Why Victims May Have Two Routes To Recovery

A five-year-old firmware defect in Coldcard hardware wallets has enabled attackers to systematically drain an estimated $116 million in Bitcoin from over 5,200 victims since July 2026. This unprecedented exploit raises critical questions about manufacturer liability and creates two distinct legal pathways for recovery: blockchain tracing against the perpetrators and potential litigation against Canadian manufacturer Coinkite for product defects that undermined the fundamental security promise of devices mar
CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
WeirFoulds LLP
WeirFoulds LLP
Article

Supreme Court Strikes Down Privative Clause: What Democracy Watch v Canada Means For Administrative Decision-makers

The Supreme Court of Canada has unanimously struck down a privative clause in the Conflict of Interest Act that attempted to bar judicial review of the Ethics Commissioner's decisions. The ruling establishes that the Constitution guarantees a minimum of legality review over all administrative decisions, with implications extending to labour relations, workers' compensation, and immigration legislation containing similar clauses.
CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Miller Thomson
Miller Thomson