The applicant sought an Order for Directions in an application challenging powers of attorney executed by his mother and seeking to replace the appointed attorneys for property and personal care.
The parties agreed to most procedural directions, including a capacity assessment, but disputed proposed terms requiring automatic production of extensive medical records and a lawyer’s file if incapacity were later found.
The court held the proposed production terms were premature, overly broad, and procedurally improper because non‑parties affected by the order had not been served.
The court emphasized the distinctions in the Substitute Decisions Act between capacity to grant powers of attorney and incapacity to manage property or personal care.
The contested production terms were refused and directions were issued for capacity assessments and procedural steps in the application.
