An adult guardian is somebody who is appointed to make decisions for an adult who is not capable of doing so. Individuals might need an adult guardian if they suffer from conditions such as a mental illness or handicap, a degenerative disease, or a head injury. This appointed individual is called a “committee.” The laws governing adult guardianship vary in different jurisdictions. This study paper provides a comparative analysis of the legislative schemes in BC and other jurisdictions, notably New Zealand and Ontario, and considers key issues that are essential for meaningful reform. Some regimes are more paternalistic, emphasizing protection of the vulnerable adult, while others focus more on individual rights and seeking to promote autonomy. The regime in BC, specifically the Patients Property Act, has been criticized for being outmoded and paternalistic. This study paper was written in light of the BC government's announcement of its intention to modernize its guardianship laws.

This report explores the procedures surrounding issues that arise when adult guardianship orders are made outside the province of British Columbia. Adult guardianship orders appoint persons to make decisions and manage the physical well-being, property, and financial affairs in circumstances where individuals are unable to act for themselves. The report makes recommendations for how issues that arise when adult guardianship orders emanate from other Canadian provinces and territories should be dealt with, namely, via the Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act.

During the 1980s, Australia remade its 'adult guardianship' laws that governed people unable to manage their own affairs or property. The reforms embraced UN principles and took a common pattern with reformist North American and European countries - with one key exception. The rest of the world chose courts to administer the laws; Australia created specialist multi-disciplinary tribunals. This book compares the work of guardianship tribunals and courts and argues forcefully that Australia's adult guardianship experiment in popular justice is a success. Carney and Tait present work on the Australian tribunals in NSW and Victoria and compare them with overseas studies on courts (and the Family Court of Australia). On every measure tribunals outperform courts. They are more inclusive. They pay more attention to social context and functioning, and are better at incorporating the affected person into the hearing, striking an 'alliance' with them. Courts, by contrast, favour alliances with families and the medical profession. Even in areas where courts might be expected to perform better, they are less successful than the tribunals, collecting and testing evidence and avoiding unnecessary intervention.