Father-son reunion not so good: a case of Committeeship

It is uncommon for a father, albeit estranged, to oppose an application by his son for Committeeship. However, in the case called Re Korol (reasons released earlier this week), it happened.

The parents, who had four children, separated in 1993. The father left British Columbia. He apparently provided support payments until 2002, at which point one of the sons (the Petitioner) started helping the wife with her financial affairs. The mother gave Power of Attorney to the Petitioner in 2008. She appeared to have become ill around 2011.

Two of the Petitioner’s siblings supported his application to be Committee, the third (who lived in the U.S.) choosing not to participate in the action. The estranged father sought an Order appointing the Public Guardian and Trustee as Committee, as he apparently did not trust his (Petitioner) son.

The Court felt that the Petitioner would be the most appropriate person to appoint as Committee. The Petitioner had helped his mother with her financial affairs since 2002, and the Public Guardian & Trustee did not oppose the Petitioner’s appointment either.

The best interests of the patient guided the Court in its decision-making here. It was clear that the Petitioner was the best person to be Committee.