In Whitmore v. Belec, 2026 ONSC 2140[1], the Ontario Superior Court of Justice provides a clear reminder that guardianship is not a status, but a continuing obligation grounded in the incapable person’s best interests. Where that obligation is not met, the Court will intervene, and, if necessary, remove a family member in favour of the Public Guardian and Trustee (“PGT”).

Background

The case concerned Lucie Belec, an incapable adult with developmental and physical limitations.[2] Her sister, Sylvie Whitmore, had been appointed guardian of property and personal care in 2021.[3] The PGT later brought a motion under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 seeking to replace Sylvie as guardian.[4] Notably, Lucie’s section 3 counsel did not oppose the motion.[5]

A Pattern of Conduct Contrary to Best Interests

The Court’s analysis focused on whether Sylvie continued to meet her statutory duty to act in Lucie’s best interests. The evidence demonstrated a troubling pattern.

Despite a guardianship plan premised on maintaining Lucie in a supportive group home where she had lived for 14 years, Sylvie removed her from that placement within a year.[6] Subsequent attempts at alternative care failed.[7] Lucie was ultimately admitted to a hospital mental health ward, an environment the Court found inappropriate for her needs and offering little enrichment.[8]

Equally concerning was Sylvie’s conduct in managing placements. Her interactions with care providers were described as aggressive, undermining Lucie’s ability to access programs, outings, and stable housing.[9] The Court also noted instances of physically aggressive behaviour toward Lucie, refusal to follow medical guidance, and resistance to available respite care.[10]

On the financial side, Sylvie failed to use Lucie’s available income and funding to secure appropriate care, incurred debts for unpaid placements, and did not pass her accounts as required.[11]

The Legal Framework

Under the Substitute Decisions Act, a guardian must act diligently, honestly, and in good faith, and always in the incapable person’s best interests. A guardianship plan is not aspirational – it reflects the basis upon which the court entrusts decision-making authority.

Here, the Court found that Sylvie had not only departed from her plan without justification, but had failed to seek court approval for any variation.[12] This, combined with her conduct, supported the conclusion that she was no longer suitable to Lucie’s guardian.

Disposition

The Court removed Sylvie as guardian of both property and personal care and appointed the PGT in her place.[13]

Key Takeaways

Whitmore v. Belec reinforces several important principles for estates and capacity practitioners:

1. Guardianship is subject to ongoing judicial oversight. Appointment is not permanent where the guardian fails to meet their duties.
2. The incapable person’s best interests remain paramount.
3. Deviation from a guardianship plan without court approval can be a significant factor in assessing a guardian’s suitability.
4. the Court will not hesitate to appoint the PGT where a private guardian’s conduct compromises the incapable person’s care, dignity, or financial well-being.

The decision is a pointed reminder that acting as a guardian carries real accountability and that the Court will intervene where that responsibility is not discharged.

 —

[1] 2026 ONSC 2140.

[2] Ibid at paras 1-3.

[3] Ibid at para 2.

[4] Ibid at para 1.

[5] Ibid at para 4.

[6] Ibid at paras 8-9.

[7] Ibid at paras 11-12.

[8] Ibid at para 6.

[9] Ibid at para 11.

[10] Ibid at para 13.

[11] Ibid at paras 15-16.

[12] Ibid at para 10.

[13] Ibid at para 19.