In today’s international economy, it is not uncommon for a person to have assets in many countries. However, this gets complicated when a person becomes incapable of managing their property. Until the recent case of Fisher v. Danilunas, 2025 ONSC 4359, there has been little guidance regarding the enforcement of foreign orders relating to a respective country’s equivalent of guardianship has in Ontario.
Facts
Ms. Danilunas, a UK resident, had substantial assets in Ontario. In 2023, the UK Court of Protection found that Ms. Danilunas lacks capacity to make decisions for herself, and deputized the applicants, Mr. Fisher and Ms. Kinsey, to make decisions concerning her property.
The applicants then brought an application in Ontario, seeking to recognize the UK court order appointing them Joint and Several Deputies for the Property and Affairs of Ms. Danilunas, which would allow them to manage Ms. Danilunas’ Ontario assets. Alternatively, an order enabling them to access and use the funds in Ms. Danilunas’ Ontario bank account and pension plan as ancillary enforcement of their UK appointment.
Court’s Analysis
Though the parties involved were all in support of an ancillary order that would allow the UK Deputies to use Ms. Danilunas’ Ontario assets, the court rejected this proposal on the basis that the court cannot “use a branch of a tree that arises from a guardianship/deputyship, without recognizing the root from which the guardianship/deputyship grows.”[1] Any such order must be premised on the court recognizing the validity of the order appointing the UK Deputies.
The court instead looked to another case, Pro-Swing Inc. v. Elta Golf Inc., 2006 SCC 52, a Supreme Court of Canada decision that dealt with the recognition of foreign orders, for direction. The court determined that when asked to enforce an in rem order appointing legal representatives for a vulnerable person made by a foreign court, a judge must look to the applicable public policies at issues and ensure that the enforcement of the foreign order does not undermine public policy so conceived. In the context at hand, this would mean considering the public policy goals of protecting the vulnerable and the principle of individual autonomy.
While the PGT argued that recognizing the UK order violates public policy because the UK process does not share all the procedural protections of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, the court disagreed. The court noted that while there are difference between the two jurisdictions, the UK system bears similar policy approaches to Ontario’s.
Ultimately, in this instance the court decided that the UK order should be enforced.
Conclusion
Depending on the jurisdiction, foreign orders concerning a vulnerable person’s property may be enforceable in Ontario. In all likelihood, orders from other common law jurisdictions, such as the UK, are more likely to be enforceable in Ontario.
[1] Fisher v. Danilunas, 2025 ONSC 4359 at para 29.
