In the recent case of Laxton v. Laxton, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered a guardianship application involving a close-knit family seeking to care for their elderly matriarch, Josephine Laxton. The court’s decision illustrates how practical, compassionate caregiving — combined with a thoughtful estate plan and clear documentation — can support a guardianship appointment without the imposition of a costly security bond, even for estates valued in the millions.
The Facts
Raymond, age 85, and his adult son Gregory applied for joint guardianship of property and personal care for Raymond’s wife, Josephine. Josephine, also in her eighties, resides in an intensive care unit at a retirement residence, while Raymond lives in a separate unit in the same facility. Their son Gregory lives nearby and assists regularly.
Josephine has long been diagnosed with dementia and had previously suffered a stroke. A formal capacity assessment in January 2024 concluded she was incapable of managing property, due to cognitive impairments that left her unable to comprehend or be educated about financial matters.
Josephine and Raymond’s finances had been jointly managed throughout their marriage. Their investments — including a jointly held portfolio valued between $2 million and $3 million — had been structured to benefit their sons equally upon their passing. The applicants asked the Court to approve the guardianship arrangement, waive the posting of security, and delay the first passing of accounts to the third anniversary of the appointment.
The Law
Under Ontario’s Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 (SDA), a person may be appointed as a guardian of property if the individual in question is found incapable of managing property, as defined under section 6 of the Act. The court must be satisfied, based on a capacity assessment, that the incapable person cannot understand or appreciate financial decisions or their consequences.
Applicants must file a detailed Management Plan with the court, which outlines how the incapable person’s property will be managed.
With respect to security, section 25 of the SDA provides that the court may require a guardian of property to post a bond or other security as a condition of appointment. However, this is discretionary, and the court can waive it in appropriate circumstances.
Guardians are generally required to pass accounts (i.e., provide a financial accounting to the court) two years after appointment unless otherwise ordered. This ensures transparency and oversight of the guardian’s financial administration.
Analysis
Justice Sylvia Corthorn was satisfied that Josephine was incapable of managing her property. The medical evidence was compelling: the assessor described Josephine’s condition as consistent with dementia, and her inability to comprehend or manage financial matters was described as “clear and compelling.”
The Court found that Raymond and Gregory were appropriate guardians. Raymond had extensive financial experience and a track record of managing their finances responsibly. Gregory brought complementary skills in information technology and lived close by to assist with day-to-day tasks. Their other son, Geoffrey, consented to the guardianship and expressed full trust in his father and brother.
The issue of security was pivotal. Although Josephine’s estate exceeded the $250,000 policy threshold often cited by the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT), the Court declined to require a bond. The reasons were pragmatic and empathetic:
-
The bond’s cost (estimated between $15,000–$22,500 annually or $150,000 upfront) was disproportionate, especially given Josephine’s deteriorating health and increasing care expenses.
-
The applicants provided credible, transparent evidence of their financial stewardship.
-
Family consensus and oversight (father-son team and a supportive sibling) reduced the risk of mismanagement.
On the issue of passing accounts, the Court followed the PGT’s recommendation: accounts must be passed within six months of the two-year anniversary, not the three-year deferral requested. This ensures accountability remains in place even where security is waived.
Lessons Learned
-
Medical capacity assessments remain the cornerstone of guardianship applications. Detailed, recent, and credible assessments — like the one provided here — are essential.
-
Security is discretionary, not automatic. Even in high-value estates, the Court may waive security where there is strong evidence of family harmony, financial competence, and low risk of abuse.
-
Thoughtful estate planning helps. Joint accounts, clear testamentary intentions, and demonstrated past management can reinforce a guardianship application.
-
Guardianship is still a fiduciary role. Even when security is not required, guardians must pass accounts on time and act transparently.
-
Family cooperation matters. Consent and trust among family members strengthen the application and can influence judicial discretion in favour of less intrusive oversight.
At Bobila Walker Law, we help families navigate Ontario’s guardianship and capacity laws with clarity, compassion, and professionalism. Whether you’re preparing a management plan or responding to a PGT concern, we’re here to help you move forward with confidence.
Please contact us at 416-847-1859.
