45 St. Clair Ave. West, Suite 600
Toronto, Ontario, M4V 1K9
Tel: (416) 925-7400

A Family Feud and Power of Attorney Documents: Vrantsidis v. Vrantsidis

The decision of Vrantsidis v. Vrantsidis[1], 2023 ONSC 321 (“Vrantsidis”) involves a dispute regarding the Powers of Attorney for Property and Personal Care of a 92-year-old mother, Alpida Vrantsidis (“Ms. Vrantsidis”).  The application arose between Mrs. Vrantsidis’ three children and continued for three years. The Court in this decision ruled that the Power of Attorney documents were in fact, valid.

Facts:

Mrs. Vrantsidis’ husband predeceased her in 2012, leaving her three children, Bill, Mary, (the “Applicants”) and John (the “Respondent”). The Respondent had been living with Mrs. Vrantsidis for the past 20 years. Mrs. Vrantsidis executed her Powers of Attorney for Property and Personal Care in 1995, appointing the Applicants and the Respondents jointly and severally. Soon after her husband’s death, Mrs. Vrantsidis’ cognitive ability began to diminish, and on October 4, 2022 she consented to a capacity assessment. [2]  This was conducted by an experienced doctor, specifically, the head geriatrician at St. Josephs Health Centre. The capacity assessment ruled that Mrs. Vrantsidis’ was incapable of managing her property or making decisions regarding her personal care.[3]

Despite this capacity assessment, the Respondent asserted that Mrs. Vrantsidis was not incapable, rather, the capacity assessment was not done in Mrs. Vrantsidis’ native language of Greek. The Respondent stated this may have caused her to misunderstand the questions and thus, should have deemed the capacity assessment inaccurate. [4]

Upon receiving the news following the incapacity assessment, the Respondent proceeded to change the locks on Mrs. Vrantsidis’ home, preventing the Applicants from visiting their mother.

The dispute between the Applicants and the Respondent stemmed from Mrs. Vrantsidis’ incapacity. Unfortunately, due to the litigation that had been ongoing in regard to Mrs. Vrantsidis power of attorney documents, she has been unable to receive health care services. Health care workers have been unable to follow the litigated power of attorney documents. [5]

The Court identified two issues for determination in the decision:

  1.    Is each of the Power of Attorney for Personal Care and the Continuing Power of Attorney for Property valid? [6]
  2.    Is Mrs. Vrantsidis a person who is incapable of managing her property and personal care decisions? [7]

Are the Power of Attorney Documents Valid?

Respecting the first issue, the Respondent asserted that the Power of Attorney for Personal Care and the Continuing Power of Attorney for Property from 1995 were, “patently defective and invalid”, lacking due execution.[8] The Respondent’s asserted this on the basis that the document did not show that Mrs. Vrantsidis signed the Power of Attorney for Personal Care document, whereas she signed every page on the Continuing Power of Attorney for Property. The Respondent submitted that the Power of Attorney document “cannot be considered valid because it is uncertain which Power of Attorney Mrs. Vrantsidis was executing”.[9]

In response to such assertions, the Applicants submitted below in accordance with the Substitute Decision Act (“SDA”);

[40] “The continuing power of attorney need not be in any particular form.” There is nothing in the SDA to suggest that a power of attorney for property and a power of attorney for personal care must be separate and cannot be combined into one document. Further, the SDA contains a “substantial compliance” provision at s. 10(4), which would allow the court to validate powers of attorney in the event of an irregular execution. Reliance on this section is not required in this case.[10]

The Applicant’s assertions were supported by the Court. The Court ruled in favour of the existing Power of Attorney for Personal Care and the Continuing Power of Attorney Property, asserting they were duly executed and operative.[11]

Mrs. Vrantsidis’ Capacity:

respecting the second issue, the Court determined it was unnecessary to address Mrs.  Vrantsidis capacity to manage property since the Court had determined that the 1995 Power of Attorneys were valid. However, due to John’s objections to the Power of Attorney documents, the Court asserted that in order for care workers to continue working with Mrs. Vrantsidis, it was likely that a Court declaration of incapacity was required. Thus, the Court proceeds to run through the Court capacity assessment done by Dr. Menzies regarding property and personal care. The major points are described here:

 “Mrs. Vrantsidis believed that she was managing her own finances, when she was not; Mrs. Vrantsidis could not estimate the value of her residence or rental property; Mrs. Vrantsidis grossly underestimated the income from her rental property; Mrs. Vrantsidis could not list any expenses other than taxes and groceries, and she could not estimate the amounts of her expenses”.[12]

“Mrs. Vrantsidis denied that she received any assistance with cooking, buying groceries, or dressing herself, which was untrue; Mrs. Vrantsidis could not describe any of the 12 medications prescribed for her; and she was unaware of her limitations and could not make a plan to carry out tasks like shopping.”[13]

For these reasons, the court confirmed that there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Mrs. Vrantsidis lacked the necessary requisite capacity to make decisions regarding property or personal care.[14]

Summary:

The Court determined that Mrs. Vrantsidis’ Power of Attorney documents were enforceable and valid, while any future decisions between two of the three co-attorneys will be binding. Vrantsidis emphasizes the potential conflicts that may arise when appointing multiple power of attorneys.

[1] Vrantsidis v. Vrantsidis, 2023 ONSC 321 (“Vrantsidis”)

[2] Ibid at para 5.

[3] Ibid at para 2.

[4] Ibid at para 5.

[5] Ibid at para 67.

[6] Ibid at para 36.

[7] Ibid at para 36.

[8] Ibid at para 38.

[9] Ibid at Para 39.

[10] Ibid at Para 40.

[11] Ibid at Para 43.

[12] Ibid at Para 47.

[13] Ibid at Para 48.

[14] Ibid at para 52.

Author

Previous Post:
Next Post:
Click here or on top Blog logo to return to Blog front page.

Search Blog by Keyword(s)

Site Search

Site Map