UNIFORM LAW CONFERENCE OF CANADA CIVIL LAW SECTION

Section 2(1) provides that a substitute decision-making document for property, health care or personal care decisions executed in another jurisdiction will be recognized as formally valid if the execution of the document complied with: the law indicated in the document; in the absence of a choice, the law of the place of habitual residence of the grantor at the time of execution or the place of ex. [...] the law expressly designated or whose designation may be inferred or, in the absence, the law of the State with which the act is most closely connected; the law of the place where the property which is the object of the juridical act is situated at the time of its conclusion; or the law of the domicile of one of the parties at the time the juridical act is concluded. [...] Which law governs 3(1) The existence, extent, modification and extinction of the powers of the decision maker under a formally valid substitute decision-making document are governed by (a) the law of the jurisdiction expressly indicated in the document, if (i) the individual is a national or former habitual resident of that jurisdiction, or (ii) the powers in question are to be exercised in relati. [...] This means, for example, that section 3 would not determine the law governing the interpretation of a contract between the decision-maker acting on behalf of the grantor and the other party to the contract or the law applicable to the sale of real property belonging to the grantor. [...] The first paragraph of subsection (2) permits a person to refuse to act in response to the authority in a substitute decision-making document if “the person would not otherwise be required in the same circumstances to act if requested by the individual who executed the substitute decision-making document.” An example of such a circumstance in the health care context is a statute that permits an at.