What Happens When Attorneys for Property Disagree in Ontario

Naming two people as attorneys for property often feels like the fair choice — neither adult child is left out, and both siblings share the responsibility. It works well until the day they disagree on something significant, and suddenly no one can move forward. What happens when attorneys for property disagree in Ontario depends heavily on exactly how the appointment was drafted, which is why the wording chosen at signing time matters far more than most families realize.

If you're in the middle of a standoff right now, the starting point is the same document that caused the problem: read it closely before assuming anyone knows what it actually requires.

The Document's Wording Controls First

Before anything else, the specific language of the power of attorney document determines how a disagreement plays out. Two attorneys can be appointed to act only together (often called "jointly"), or to each act independently (often described as "jointly and severally," or with wording allowing either attorney to act alone). These are meaningfully different structures, and the difference only becomes obvious once a real disagreement arises.

If the Attorneys Must Act Jointly

Where the document requires the attorneys to act together, a genuine disagreement can freeze decision-making entirely — bills may go unpaid, investments may sit unmanaged, and property decisions may stall, simply because unanimous agreement is a formal requirement that isn't being met.

If Either Attorney Can Act Independently

Where the document allows either attorney to act alone, disagreement is less likely to cause outright paralysis, but it introduces a different risk: one attorney can act without the other's knowledge or agreement, which can create its own conflicts, duplicate efforts, or contradictory instructions to banks and institutions.

Common Situations Where Co-Attorneys Clash

• Disagreement over selling or keeping a property, such as the grantor's home
• Different views on the appropriate level of spending on the grantor's care
• One attorney wanting to make investment changes the other resists
• Disagreement about whether a particular expense benefits the grantor or someone else
• One attorney suspecting the other of acting in their own interest rather than the grantor's

Options to Break a Deadlock

There's no single fix that applies to every disagreement, but the realistic options generally include:

1. Go back to the document and confirm exactly what it requires. Many disputes soften once both sides see, in writing, whether unanimous agreement is actually mandatory.
2. Try to resolve it directly, in writing, with a clear record of the decision reached. This protects both attorneys later if the decision is ever questioned.
3. Bring in a neutral third party, such as a mediator, for a genuinely stuck disagreement — particularly useful where the underlying issue is family tension rather than a legal question.
4. Ask a lawyer whether the situation calls for a court application for directions, which allows a court to weigh in on a specific disputed decision without necessarily removing either attorney.
5. Consider whether removal or a different appointment structure is warranted, if the deadlock is chronic rather than a one-time disagreement, or if one attorney's conduct is the real underlying problem.

When Disagreement Signals a Bigger Problem

Not every clash between co-attorneys is really about the disagreement on the surface. If one attorney consistently pushes for decisions that seem to benefit themselves, resists providing information to the other, or won't account for what's been done with the grantor's property, the disagreement may be a symptom of a fiduciary problem rather than a simple difference of opinion. That's a different — and more serious — situation than an honest disagreement about the grantor's best interests, and it calls for different advice.

Preventing This Before It Happens

If you're the one drafting a power of attorney and considering naming more than one attorney, this is exactly the point in the process to think through how disagreements should be handled — whether that means requiring joint decisions for major matters only, allowing either attorney to act independently for routine matters, or naming a single primary attorney with a named alternate instead of co-attorneys at all.

Frequently asked questions