A B.C. Supreme Court judge has rejected a son’s attempt to have his dad assessed and declared mentally “incapable of managing his affairs,” which could enable the son to take over his dad’s affairs.
In a judgment published last month, Justice Palbinder Kaur Shergill dismissed Harjit Singh Sandhu’s petition for the declaration, describing it as an “extraordinarily intrusive remedy” and voicing her doubts about his intentions.
According to the judgment, Harjit had lived with his dad Mohinder Singh Sandhu and mom at their family home in Richmond until they had a “falling out” 20 years ago. They had “virtually nothing to do with each other” for the next two decades, although they did briefly reconcile on several occasions.
Harjit had requested the court intervene and order a medical examination of Mohinder because the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) “either refused or failed” to have Mohinder examined “despite being aware of his circumstances.” (The PGT is an entity designed to protect those who are unable to make decisions and protect their own interests.)
According to Harjit, Mohinder showed “hoarding and erratic behaviour,” was “belligerent,” made “bad financial investments,” allowed himself to be “used by others,” and was “embroiled in litigation with the City of Richmond, to the point where he has breached court orders and findings of contempt have been made against him.”
The son relied on a geriatric physician’s diagnosis of Mohinder, which stated he had a “major neurocognitive disorder” but the physician did not assess Mohinder's capacity to manage his affairs. However, the son ordered an additional mental capacity assessment of his father and this one did deem Mohinder “incapable of managing his own affairs due to mental infirmity.”
In her judgment, Justice Shergill acknowledged the “serious nature of the declaration of incapability” and said it was “imperative” that the court takes care when exercising its powers “as compelling a person to submit to a medical examination intrudes on their personal autonomy, and implicates several Charter values.”
She expressed “serious concerns” about the reliability of the mental capacity assessment submitted by Harjit, as “several of (the doctor’s) key factual assumptions are controverted, considered out of context, and based on information provided to him by (Harjit),” who had “adverse” interest against his dad.
For example, the report relied heavily on the fact that Mohinder had fallen victim to a Ponzi scheme to show his “failure in judgment.”
“This opinion overlooks the fact that many people of sound mind, such as Mohinder's psychiatrist (who alerted him to the financial investment) also fell prey to the same Ponzi scheme,” she said, adding that Mohinder had received another assessment which deemed him capable of managing his own affairs.
‘Serious doubts’ about son’s intentions
She also dismissed Harjit’s claims of his dad’s “hoarding and erratic behaviour” as she has “serious doubts” about Harjit’s intentions.
“(Harjit) is adverse in interest to (Mohinder), has been estranged from him for the better part of 20 years, and has inserted himself into the lives of his parents against their wishes,” wrote Justice Shergill.
In her judgement, Justice Shergill noted that Mohinder had granted a power of attorney to a relative because he was “vehemently opposed to (Harjit) acting on his behalf” as he “does not trust his estranged son and does not want him to deal with his personal or financial affairs.”
She noted there was “credible evidence” that Harjit took documents from his parents’ home “without their permission,” acted “unilaterally” with their valued possessions, and convinced his mom to give him a “substantial amount of money” to pay contractors and kept some of it without their permission.
“While he ultimately returned the $30,000 that he held without his parent’s permission, he did so only after this litigation was commenced, and just days before the hearing was set to re-convene,” wrote Justice Shergill.
She added that just because the PGT didn’t order an assessment for Mohinder, it didn’t mean there is a gap in the law for protecting those in need.
“It simply means that the PGT has determined that the circumstances of his case do not warrant its intervention. It is entitled to come to that conclusion.”
She said that having “significant health concerns” and being “embroiled in legal disputes for several years” does not mean Mohinder needs protection or may be incapable, and there is “no indication that there are gaps in his care, or that he is personally at risk, or vulnerable to abuse or neglect.”
For example, he is “financially comfortable, living with his wife in his own home, and has sought the assistance of appropriate people to help him manage his personal and financial affairs.”
“I see nothing in the evidence before me, that would warrant the extraordinarily intrusive remedy being sought by the petitioner,” Justice Shergill concluded.
