Guardianship applications often raise practical questions about balancing protection of the incapable person’s assets with minimizing costs burdens on those assets. In Laxton v. Laxton[1], 2025 ONSC 3138, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered whether security was required in a guardianship of property where the incapable person’s estate exceeded $2 million, and whether the first passing of accounts could be deferred beyond the customary two-year mark.

Background

Josephine Laxton (“Josephine”), age 82, lives at Chapel Hill Retirement Residence. She has been diagnosed with dementia and previously suffered a stroke. Josephine’s husband, Raymond Laxton (“Raymond”), and her adult son, Gregory Laxton (“Gregory”), brought an application to be appointed as her joint guardians of property.[2]

Josephine’s other son, Geoffrey, consented.[3] Raymond and Gregory had already been appointed as her joint guardians of personal care in earlier proceedings (November 2024).[4] The court was now asked to determine whether Josephine was incapable of managing her property, whether Raymond and Gregory should be appointed her guardians of property, whether they must post security, and when they would first be required to pass accounts.[5]

The Court’s Analysis

1. Finding of Incapacity

The Court relied on a capacity assessment that Josephine underwent just two months before the guardianship application was commenced, as well as medical history. In the assessor’s opinion, there was “clear and compelling evidence” that Josehine lacked the insight required to manage her finances. [6]

The court found Josephine incapable of managing property under s. 6 of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 30, as amended.[7]

2. Appointment of Guardians

The court accepted that Raymond, a retired financial advisor with long experience managing the couple’s affairs, and Gregory, who lived nearby and possessed strong analytical skills, were well placed to act jointly.[8]

Their affidavits showed commitment to Josephine’s best interests, and the family’s estate plan already provided for equal benefit to both sons.[9] Joint guardianship was granted in accordance with the management plan filed.

3. Security

The Public Guardian and Trustee highlighted its policy of recommending security where assets exceed $250,000 (or $500,000 if real estate is involved).[10] Josephine’s assets were valued between $2–3 million.[11]

However, evidence from three insurance brokers showed that security would be extremely costly: a one-time bond could exceed $150,000, and annual premiums could range from $15,000 to $22,500. The court held that requiring such security would represent a significant and unnecessary encroachment on Josephine’s funds, which were better devoted to her care in light of her declining health.[12]

Importantly, the court noted:

• The family was financially secure and had planned transparently.
• Raymond and Gregory could act as checks on each other.
• Geoffrey trusted both applicants and consented to the appointment without security.[13]

The court exercised its discretion to dispense with security, emphasizing that the issue could be revisited when the guardians pass their accounts.[14]

4. Passing of Accounts

While the applicants sought to defer the first passing of accounts to the three-year anniversary, the court instead adopted the PGT’s recommendation: accounts must be passed within six months of the two-year anniversary of appointment.[15]

5. Costs

No costs were ordered except that Raymond was required to pay the modest costs of the PGT in the amount of $282.50.[16]

Final Thoughts

Laxton v. Laxton highlights the court’s pragmatic approach to guardianship of property. Although the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, contemplates security to protect incapable persons’ assets, the court will dispense with this requirement where the family demonstrates integrity, transparency, and financial acumen, and where the costs of security would unduly burden the incapable person’s assets. At the same time, the requirement to pass accounts within two years provides a safeguard for oversight and accountability.

This case illustrates the balance courts seek protecting vulnerable individuals while respecting family arrangements and avoiding unnecessary depletion of assets.

—

[1] Laxton v. Laxton, 2025 ONSC 3138 [Laxton].

[2] Ibid at para 1.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid at para 2.

[5] Ibid at para 4.

[6] Ibid at para 7.

[7] Ibid at para 8.

[8] Ibid at paras 10-11.

[9] Ibid at para 12.

[10] Ibid at para 15.

[11] Ibid at para 14.

[12] Ibid at paras 16-20.

[13] Ibid at para 21.

[14] Ibid at paras 22-23.

[15] Ibid at para 24.

[16] Ibid at para 25.