The Public Guardian and Trustee V. Rakowski: When Has a Guardian Done All It Can?
In The Public Guardian and Trustee v. Rakowski, 2026 ONSC 4133, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered whether the Public Guardian and Trustee (“PGT”) should be removed as interim guardian of the person for the limited purpose of making shelter decisions.[1]
Background
The PGT was appointed as Ms. Rakowski’s interim guardian of the person with respect to shelter in March 2021.[2] Through the PGT’s efforts, Ms. Rakowski obtained an apartment at Andras Court in Thunder Bay, where she continued to reside.[3]
Ms. Rakowski was unhappy with the accommodation and had reported incidents of assault and sexual assault at the building.[4] At various times, she stayed elsewhere to avoid residing at Andras Court. Her mother also raised concerns about the suitability and safety of the residence and advocated for alternative housing.[5]
Over the following five years, the PGT worked with several community organizations and explored numerous alternative housing options.[6] However, Ms. Rakowski’s budget presented a significant obstacle. Her income was limited to approximately $1,700 per month from a structured settlement, restricting her available housing options to accommodations costing approximately $900 per month or less.[7]
Ms. Rakowski was placed on several waitlists, but the evidence suggested that it could take 10 years or more for suitable housing to become available.[8]
Issue
The issue before the Court was whether the PGT should be removed as Ms. Rakowski’s interim guardian of the person with respect to shelter.
Analysis
The PGT Had Largely Exhausted the Available Housing Options
Section 55(1) of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 provides that the Court may appoint a guardian of the person where a person is incapable of personal care and, as a result, requires decisions to be made on their behalf by an authorized person.[9]
The Court accepted the PGT’s position that the practical limits of Ms. Rakowski’s housing options meant there was little more it could presently do as guardian for shelter. In particular, the lengthy wait times for alternative subsidized housing meant that the PGT could not simply secure a different residence despite the concerns surrounding Andras Court.[10]
The Court therefore agreed that there was “little more” the PGT could presently do to fulfil its role as interim guardian for shelter. [11]
The Outstanding Portable Housing Benefit
Despite the PGT’s efforts, one issue remained unresolved: Ms. Rakowski’s eligibility for the Portable Housing Benefit (“PHB”), a portable rent subsidy.[12] The PGT had reapplied for the PHB in March 2026, but the application remained outstanding at the time of the hearing.[13]
If approved, the PHB could increase Ms. Rakowski’s available rental budget and potentially create additional housing options. The Court therefore concluded that the PHB application should be resolved before determining whether the PGT’s guardianship was no longer required.[14]
Accordingly, the application was adjourned to September 2026 for an update on the PHB application and further directions.[15]
Takeaway
Rakowski highlights the difficult role of a guardian where practical constraints leave few meaningful options available. Although the Court recognized the significant efforts undertaken by the PGT over several years to secure suitable housing for Ms. Rakowski, the inquiry did not end with what the PGT had already done.
Rather, the Court remained focused on Ms. Rakowski’s needs and best interests. With the PHB application still outstanding, and the possibility that additional funding could open the door to other housing options, the Court concluded that the PGT’s role was not yet at an end. The decision is a useful reminder that even where a guardian has largely exhausted the options available, the continued necessity of the guardianship must ultimately be considered from the perspective of the incapable person and the decisions that remain to be made on their behalf.
—
[1] 2026 ONSC 4133 [Rakowski].
[2] Ibid at para 5.
[3] Ibid at para 6.
[4] Ibid at para 7.
[5] Ibid at para 8.
[6] Ibid at para 11.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid at paras 12, 20.
[9] Ibid at para 18.
[10] Ibid at paras 19, 20.
[11] Ibid at para 21.
[12] Ibid at para 22.
[13] Ibid at para 23.
[14] Ibid at para 24.
[15] Ibid at para 28.
Written by: Emily Caza
Posted on: September 22, 2026
Categories: Commentary, Guardianship, WEL Newsletter
In The Public Guardian and Trustee v. Rakowski, 2026 ONSC 4133, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered whether the Public Guardian and Trustee (“PGT”) should be removed as interim guardian of the person for the limited purpose of making shelter decisions.[1]
Background
The PGT was appointed as Ms. Rakowski’s interim guardian of the person with respect to shelter in March 2021.[2] Through the PGT’s efforts, Ms. Rakowski obtained an apartment at Andras Court in Thunder Bay, where she continued to reside.[3]
Ms. Rakowski was unhappy with the accommodation and had reported incidents of assault and sexual assault at the building.[4] At various times, she stayed elsewhere to avoid residing at Andras Court. Her mother also raised concerns about the suitability and safety of the residence and advocated for alternative housing.[5]
Over the following five years, the PGT worked with several community organizations and explored numerous alternative housing options.[6] However, Ms. Rakowski’s budget presented a significant obstacle. Her income was limited to approximately $1,700 per month from a structured settlement, restricting her available housing options to accommodations costing approximately $900 per month or less.[7]
Ms. Rakowski was placed on several waitlists, but the evidence suggested that it could take 10 years or more for suitable housing to become available.[8]
Issue
The issue before the Court was whether the PGT should be removed as Ms. Rakowski’s interim guardian of the person with respect to shelter.
Analysis
The PGT Had Largely Exhausted the Available Housing Options
Section 55(1) of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 provides that the Court may appoint a guardian of the person where a person is incapable of personal care and, as a result, requires decisions to be made on their behalf by an authorized person.[9]
The Court accepted the PGT’s position that the practical limits of Ms. Rakowski’s housing options meant there was little more it could presently do as guardian for shelter. In particular, the lengthy wait times for alternative subsidized housing meant that the PGT could not simply secure a different residence despite the concerns surrounding Andras Court.[10]
The Court therefore agreed that there was “little more” the PGT could presently do to fulfil its role as interim guardian for shelter. [11]
The Outstanding Portable Housing Benefit
Despite the PGT’s efforts, one issue remained unresolved: Ms. Rakowski’s eligibility for the Portable Housing Benefit (“PHB”), a portable rent subsidy.[12] The PGT had reapplied for the PHB in March 2026, but the application remained outstanding at the time of the hearing.[13]
If approved, the PHB could increase Ms. Rakowski’s available rental budget and potentially create additional housing options. The Court therefore concluded that the PHB application should be resolved before determining whether the PGT’s guardianship was no longer required.[14]
Accordingly, the application was adjourned to September 2026 for an update on the PHB application and further directions.[15]
Takeaway
Rakowski highlights the difficult role of a guardian where practical constraints leave few meaningful options available. Although the Court recognized the significant efforts undertaken by the PGT over several years to secure suitable housing for Ms. Rakowski, the inquiry did not end with what the PGT had already done.
Rather, the Court remained focused on Ms. Rakowski’s needs and best interests. With the PHB application still outstanding, and the possibility that additional funding could open the door to other housing options, the Court concluded that the PGT’s role was not yet at an end. The decision is a useful reminder that even where a guardian has largely exhausted the options available, the continued necessity of the guardianship must ultimately be considered from the perspective of the incapable person and the decisions that remain to be made on their behalf.
—
[1] 2026 ONSC 4133 [Rakowski].
[2] Ibid at para 5.
[3] Ibid at para 6.
[4] Ibid at para 7.
[5] Ibid at para 8.
[6] Ibid at para 11.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid at paras 12, 20.
[9] Ibid at para 18.
[10] Ibid at paras 19, 20.
[11] Ibid at para 21.
[12] Ibid at para 22.
[13] Ibid at para 23.
[14] Ibid at para 24.
[15] Ibid at para 28.
Author