Power of Attorney in Ontario: A Study of the Information Behaviours of Attorneys in the Contexts of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, Capacity, and an Aging Population
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This dissertation documents a study of the information behaviours of substitute decision-makers (attorneys) exercising Power of Attorney (POA) in Ontario for older relatives with compromised decisional capacity (grantors) as they deteriorated. This research identifies how attorneys acquired the information they needed to execute their fiduciary responsibilities under Ontario’s Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, which gives attorneys the authority to make property and personal care decisions on behalf of another person. Context was an integral part of this study: the development of “continuing power of attorney” law in Ontario, plus the Fram Report with its model of care based on preserving the person’s autonomy, combined with the aging of the Baby Boom generation, and changing social attitudes to the loss of capacity and other infirmities that accompany aging, form the background to this research. The central finding of the study was that attorneys adapted their information acquisition strategies and actions to the changes in the physical and/or mental health of their grantors as they declined toward death. The study was based on interviews with eight attorneys from the Greater Toronto Area (plus two from a pilot study), all of whom had responsibility for the care of one-generation-older relatives. Interviews, which were transcribed and process coded, revealed nine themes. Endsley’s (1995) theory of Situation Awareness was used to examine the period of dormant POA authority between the time grantors assigned POA authority and the attorneys’ decisions to activate that authority on reasonable grounds. Ellis’s (1989) and Ellis et al.’s (1993) information search models were used to investigate attorney information acquisition activities from the moment the attorneys began to perform their POA duties throughout their tenure. Attorneys described how they searched for and found their grantors’ financial information, moved them to retirement and long-term care homes, hired caregivers to enable them to age in place, and made numerous other decisions for their well-being. The findings of this study confirmed many of the findings of the Law Commission of Ontario in its 2017 Report, Legal Capacity, Decision-making and Guardianship, especially its finding of how little attorneys knew about the statutes that governed their decision-making activities.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».