Harvey Felicia PTT assignment
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
CDI College of Business, Technology and Health Care *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
2024
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by CaptainOctopusPerson941
Begg vs. Begg
Felicia Harvey
Wills and Estate Planning
Shannon
Dhaliwal
2023-10-4
Facts of the case:
In this case the deceased Monica Elizabeth Begg is represented by her guardian’s
ad litem Paula Jean Charlotte Begg, Virginia Anne Stephen, and Katherine Marie Christine
Taberner. Those also involved in this case are Stephen Robert Begg, Phillip Stanley Gerald Begg,
Patricia Elizabeth Begg, Jacqueline Mary Winnifred Buchanan, Geraldine Frances Herron, Ian
Christopher Begg, and Margaret Mary Lacroix. In this case the court is hearing two applications.
The first being Stephen Robert Begg’s, the defendant, filed on November 2
nd
, 2012. The second
being Monica Elizabeth Begg, the plaintiff, filed a cross application on November 22
nd
, 2012.
Monica Begg died after signing a representation agreement on June 23
rd
, 2011, this gave Paula,
Virginia, and Katherine power of attorney.
The defendant wants the representation agreement to be null and void. The defendant also
claims that the plaintiff revoked the representation agreement and power of attorney which
would have already rendered the agreement null and void. He claims that this was done around
December 1
st
, 2011. The plaintiffs want the courts to rule that Monica Elizabeth Begg lacked the
mental capacity to make her own decisions on December 1
st
, 2011, and that the representation
agreement and Power of Attorney have been valid since the date of execution. They also ask the
court to rule that Monica’s revocation of the agreement and power of attorney on December 22
nd
,
2011, be null and void due to the lack of legal capacity.
Issue:
The issues regarding this case include:
1.
Was there a defect in the execution of the representation agreement which makes it
invalid?
2.
3.
If Monica Begg had the capacity required by law to revoke the representation agreement
as of December 22, 2011, did she effectively revoke the representation agreement?
4.
Should the interlocutory injunction be set aside to the extent that it applies to
the defendant Stephen Begg?
The judge stated that regarding the first two issues the judge ruled “any defects or
irregularities in the procedure used to bring these two applications on for hearing as applications
pursuant to Civil Rule 9-7, will be deemed to be waived.” [ CITATION Beg12 \l 4105 ] For the
last issue regarding the case the judge stated, “The third issue requires only an interlocutory (not
a final) decision and is properly before the court.” [ CITATION Beg12 \l 4105 ]
Law Cited in this case:
Based on section 2 of the Representation Agreement Act defines the purpose of the Act in
a way which focuses on an adult’s capacity to make decisions independently “about their health
care or personal care, the routine management of their financial affairs or other matters.”
[ CITATION Beg12 \l 4105 ] It was in the judge’s opinion that the definition of the purpose that a
representative named in an agreement may only make decisions for the adult about any of the
specified matters if the adult becomes “incapable of making decisions independently” about one
(or more) of those matters, as described in s. 3(1). The judge also found that the opinions stated
by Dr. Myronuk are undisputed, this report is dated for May 22
nd
, 2012 and they satisfy the legal
requirements for the exercise of authority by the three representatives under the representation
agreement. It was also determined that Dr. Colin Forrester has given an opinion which favours
the plaintiff’s case, as to the time of the onset of the plaintiff’s mental incapacity. If Dr.
Forrester’s opinions are accepted, it would support the conclusion that the presumption of
capacity in s. 3(1) of the Act was rebutted as of November 10, 2011. But there are reasons which,
in my view, militate against such acceptance. [ CITATION Beg12 \l 4105 ]
Application / Ratio to the case:
The court ruled that the execution requirement may have been met if Paula, Katherine or
Virginia had signed the agreement, but the omission constitutes a flaw in the agreement. The
court methodically decided that the flaw was not enough to render the entire agreement null and
void. Based on section 32(4) of the Representation Agreement Act the agreement would not be
found null and void and that the lack of objections to the agreement it was properly created and
executed.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Bibliography
Begg v. Begg, S65035 (Nanaimo, British Columbia December 3rd & 4th, 2012).