When an adult can no longer manage their own affairs and never named anyone to act for them, a family member or friend usually has to ask the Supreme Court of British Columbia to appoint a decision-maker. In BC that person is called a committee, and the process is governed by the Patients Property Act. When two people both want the role, or the family cannot agree on who is best suited, the application becomes contested and the court must choose between them.

The short answer to how the court chooses is this: the Patients Property Act sets no ranking of who should serve, so a contested committeeship turns primarily on a single question, namely which appointment is in the best interests of the patient. The court answers that question by weighing an established list of factors drawn from the case law, with particular attention to any conflict of interest between a proposed committee and the patient.

In this blog, the estate litigation team at Meridian Law Group builds on our earlier overview of committeeship disputes in BC to explain the factors the court weighs between competing applicants, when it will and will not split the role between two people, and who pays for the application. We illustrate those principles through Baker-MacGrotty v. Baker, 2016 BCSC 699, a contested application between a brother and sister in which a conflict of interest proved decisive.

What is a committee, and how is one appointed in BC?

A committee is a person, or in some cases a trust company or the Public Guardian and Trustee, appointed by the Supreme Court of British Columbia to manage the affairs of an adult who has been declared incapable of doing so. The Patients Property Act calls that adult the “patient”. A committee of the estate manages the patient’s financial and legal affairs; a committee of the person makes decisions about health care, living arrangements, and personal welfare. Often one person holds both roles, but the court can appoint different people to each, or two or more people as co-committees.

A committee can only be appointed by court order. Under sections 2 and 3 of the Act, the application may be brought by the Attorney General, a near relative, or another person, and must be supported by affidavits from two medical practitioners confirming that the person is incapable of managing themselves or their affairs and explaining the cause. The applicant also swears an affidavit describing the patient’s assets, debts, residence, and care, together with a plan for managing the patient’s affairs. Notice goes to the patient and, in practice, to the next of kin, some of whom may file a consent. The Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia (the “PGT”) reviews every application and may recommend conditions on the committee’s authority, which the court can impose under section 16. Our committeeship application page describes the process and the committee’s ongoing reporting obligations in more detail.

Importantly, under section 19 of the Act, a declaration of incapacity ends every power of attorney the patient granted, and ends any representation agreement unless the court orders otherwise. How the court exercises that discretion, and why Baker-MacGrotty and Lindberg v. Lindberg, 2010 BCSC 1127 reached opposite results, is the subject of our companion post on whether a committeeship cancels a power of attorney or representation agreement in BC.

What factors does the court consider when choosing between competing applicants?

The court’s overriding question is which appointment will serve the best interests of the patient. Section 18 of the Patients Property Act requires a committee to exercise its powers for the benefit of the patient and the patient’s family, having regard to the nature and value of the patient’s property and the needs of the patient and family, and, so far as reasonable, to foster the patient’s independence. Beyond that, the Act sets no criteria for choosing a committee, so the courts have built a list through the case law. In Stewart (Re), 2014 BCSC 2321, the Supreme Court of British Columbia described the considerations as including:

• whether the appointment reflects the patient’s wishes, formed while the patient was capable of forming such a wish;
• whether immediate family members agree with the appointment;
• whether there is any conflict between family members, or between the family and the patient, and whether the proposed committee would be likely to consult immediate family about the patient’s care;
• the proposed committee’s previous involvement with the patient, with family members usually preferred;
• the proposed committee’s understanding of the patient’s current situation and their ability to cope with future changes;
• whether the proposed committee will provide love and support to the patient;
• whether the proposed committee is the best person to manage the patient’s financial affairs and ensure the income and estate are used for the patient’s benefit;
• whether the proposed committee has breached a fiduciary duty owed to the patient, or engaged in conduct that diminishes confidence in their ability to handle the patient’s affairs properly;
• who is best placed to advocate for the patient’s medical needs;
• whether the proposed committee has an appropriate plan of care and management for the patient and their affairs and is best able to carry it out; and
• whether dividing responsibility for the patient’s estate and the patient’s person between different people would serve the patient’s best interests, or would be less than optimal for the patient.

The court in Stewart stressed that the list is not exhaustive and is in no particular order; the inquiry is fact-specific, and a given factor may carry different weight, or none at all, depending on the circumstances. Practical matters can also come into play, such as whether the proposed committee lives near the patient, can provide transportation, has competing demands on their time, and is willing to support the recreational or religious practices the patient wishes to continue. These factors matter most when the court must choose between applicants who cannot agree. Ultimately, whatever the court finds to be in the patient’s best interests prevails.

What is a reasonable plan of care and management?

A reasonable plan is one that meets all of the patient’s needs while preserving the patient’s assets prudently and with an eye to cost, whether the patient recovers capacity or needs funded care for many years. Depending on the circumstances, that may mean selling the patient’s home to reduce carrying costs and free up funds for long-term care, paying down debt, and investing the patient’s money sensibly. In managing the estate, a committee is held to the standard of a trustee: section 15 of the Patients Property Act provides that a committee is a trustee within the meaning of the Trustee Act. An applicant who arrives at the hearing with a concrete, costed plan is in a far stronger position than one who does not.

Can the court split committee of the person and committee of the estate between two people?

Yes, the court can appoint one person as committee of the person and another as committee of the estate, but it will often decline to do so where the applicants are in conflict. The two roles overlap heavily: decisions about the patient’s money are driven by the patient’s care needs, so dividing authority between people who cannot cooperate tends to work against the patient rather than for them. In Baker-MacGrotty, the court found that sharing committeeship was neither proposed nor likely to be in the patient’s best interests given the history between the siblings.

Bowman (Re), 2009 BCSC 523 shows the alternative. Two siblings who had agreed to act as interim co-committees of their mother’s estate deadlocked over how her investment portfolio of roughly $400,000 should be managed, leaving the account frozen and paying no income for more than a year. The court rescinded the co-committee appointment, declined to appoint either sibling alone, and appointed an independent trust company as committee of the estate, reasoning that the fees of a professional committee were preferable to the legal costs and repeated court applications that the family conflict would otherwise produce.

How a conflict of interest decided Baker-MacGrotty v. Baker

The facts

The patient was an 84-year-old widow who had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s-type dementia in 2009. Her two children, a daughter and a son, each sought to be appointed sole committee of her person and estate. The son had moved into his parents’ Maple Ridge home in 2009 following the breakdown of his marriage, an arrangement that suited everyone at the time: he lived rent-free and his aging parents had him close at hand. In May 2013, the mother signed an enduring power of attorney and a representation agreement appointing her husband and her son, with an express wish that the son continue to live in the home rent-free so that he could care for her there. The daughter learned of the appointments only by letter from the lawyer the following month.

By August 2014, the mother and her husband had moved into residential care, and her husband died a year later. The son and his wife remained in the house, occupying the upper two floors and renting the basement suite to a tenant for $900 a month. The home, worth approximately $600,000 against about $165,000 of mortgage debt, was the mother’s only significant asset. Her pension income of about $2,270 a month fell roughly $620 short of her expenses, which still included property taxes and insurance on a house she no longer lived in. The son paid only the monthly mortgage of $625, which the court noted was one-third to one-quarter of the market rent for the space he occupied.

The conflict of interest

The PGT, although it took no position on who should be appointed, flagged that the son was in a conflict of interest: he occupied the property that was his mother’s main asset and that might have to be sold for her benefit, and the rent-free permission in the power of attorney had lapsed because it was expressly tied to his caring for his parents at home. The court agreed. Despite his fiduciary duties and his mother’s negative cash flow, the son had neither seriously considered selling the house nor paid reasonable occupation rent.

The court was also troubled that in June 2013, shortly after his appointment as attorney, the son had accepted a $32,480 fifth-wheel trailer as a gift from his parents, funded by $10,000 of their savings and $22,480 of borrowed money, at a time when they could ill afford it. In the court’s words, accepting such a gift “reveals, at best, a worrisome lack of good judgment and, at worst, an act of blatant self-interest.” The court further found that the son had unreasonably restricted his sister’s access to their parents and had shown a disinclination to consult her.

The result

The court terminated the representation agreement and, applying the Stewart factors, appointed the daughter sole committee of her mother’s estate and person. The daughter was a banker, and there was no suggestion she would manage the money for anyone’s benefit but her mother’s; she visited often, knew the simple things that gave her mother joy, and had proven herself a tireless advocate. The son, by contrast, had engaged in conduct that diminished confidence in his ability to handle his mother’s affairs with integrity. The daughter was appointed without having to post a bond and was awarded her costs.

Who pays the legal costs of a committeeship application?

In most cases the patient’s estate pays. Because a committeeship application is brought to protect the patient rather than to advance the applicant’s own interests, the court commonly orders the applicant’s legal costs to be paid from the patient’s estate as special costs, often subject to review by the PGT. In Bowman, the court awarded special costs to both siblings even though neither was ultimately appointed, because both had litigated with the genuine goal of protecting their mother. In Baker-MacGrotty, the successful petitioner was awarded her costs as claimed, but her brother received no costs.

Costs do not follow automatically, however. An applicant who brings the application for an ulterior motive, or who is found to be in a conflict of interest with the patient, may be denied costs from the estate and left to pay their own legal fees. Additionally, if the patient’s estate is very modest, it may not be able to justify such costs.

What contested committeeships mean for BC families

Because the Patients Property Act offers no hierarchy of who should serve, a contested committeeship turns on the court’s assessment of the patient’s best interests, and the evidence that assessment rewards is practical rather than sentimental. Three lessons follow from Baker-MacGrotty and the cases it applies.

First, the applicant most likely to succeed is the one who is close to the patient, free of any conflict of interest, willing to consult the rest of the family, and able to present a credible, costed plan of care. Professional competence with money, as the successful daughter’s banking background showed, is a real advantage for committee of the estate.

Second, conduct that looks like self-dealing can be decisive even against an applicant who was the patient’s own first choice. Living in the patient’s house without paying market rent, resisting a sale that the patient’s finances require, or accepting gifts the patient cannot afford will all be read by the court, and by the PGT, as evidence of a conflict.

Third, where those applying to be appointed committee simply cannot cooperate, the court will not force them into a shared arrangement. It may appoint one of them alone, as in Baker-MacGrotty, or bypass both and appoint a trust company, as in Bowman.

If you are considering an application, opposing one, or concerned that a committee is not acting in a loved one’s interests, our lawyers can advise on applying to be committee and on removing a committee who is no longer suitable. Where assets are at risk while an application is pending, see our post on emergency asset protection before a committeeship order.

Frequently asked questions about contested committeeships in BC

Who decides between two people who both want to be committee?

The Supreme Court of British Columbia decides, based on the best interests of the patient. It weighs factors such as each applicant’s relationship with and involvement in the patient’s life, their plan of care, whether they have any conflict of interest, and whether they are likely to consult the rest of the family, as illustrated in Baker-MacGrotty v. Baker.

What is the difference between committee of the person and committee of the estate?

Committee of the estate has authority over the patient’s financial and legal affairs, while committee of the person has authority over health care, living arrangements, and personal welfare. One person can hold both roles, or the court can appoint different people to each, although it is reluctant to split the roles between people who are in conflict.

Can two people be appointed co-committees in BC?

Yes, the court can appoint co-committees, but only where they can work together. In Bowman (Re), two siblings who deadlocked as interim co-committees, leaving their mother’s investments frozen for over a year, were both removed and an independent trust company was appointed in their place.

Does the patient’s own choice of decision-maker matter?

Yes. The patient’s wishes, formed while they were capable, are the first factor the court considers, and a valid power of attorney or representation agreement is strong evidence of them. Those wishes carry less weight where the documents were signed after the patient’s capacity was already compromised or where the chosen person is in a conflict of interest.

Who pays for a committeeship application in BC?

The patient’s estate usually pays the applicant’s legal fees as special costs, often subject to review by the Public Guardian and Trustee, because the application is brought for the patient’s benefit. Costs may be refused where the applicant has an ulterior motive or is in a conflict of interest with the patient.

Contact Meridian Law Group for Trusted Committeeship and Estate Litigation Advice in Vancouver

Committeeship disputes are among the most sensitive matters a family can face, arising at the moment a loved one is most vulnerable. The estate litigation lawyers at Meridian Law Group advise families on committeeship applications, removing a committee, powers of attorney, and elder law concerns. From the prominent Nelson Square Building in downtown Vancouver, the firm has advocated for clients across British Columbia for more than three decades, including in West Vancouver, North Vancouver, Coquitlam, Penticton, Kelowna, Richmond, New Westminster, Burnaby, Surrey, Langley, and White Rock. To discuss your matter, please call (604) 687-2277 or contact us online.

About the author, Sarah MacDonald. Sarah MacDonald is a litigation lawyer at Meridian Law Group in Vancouver. She earned her Juris Doctor from the Peter A. Allard School of Law at the University of British Columbia (2024) and was called to the British Columbia Bar in 2025, having joined the firm as an articled student in 2024. She holds an Honours Specialization in International Relations from Western University (2021), was the 2023 recipient of the Marlee G. Kline Essay Prize, and represented Allard at the 2024 BC Law Schools Competitive Moot. Sarah practises in general civil litigation, including estate litigation, insurance law, personal injury, commercial litigation, and property matters, and has appeared before the Provincial Court and the Supreme Court of British Columbia. She is a member of the Canadian Bar Association and the Law Society of British Columbia.