Mr.

Granting authority jointly to Joseph and Christine is the most appropriate response because the Morrones' concern relates to Joseph exercising decision-making authority alone, particularly over contentious property.

Where two attorneys are appointed jointly, important decisions ordinarily require participation or agreement by both attorneys unless the governing document specifically provides otherwise. This introduces oversight and reduces the risk of unilateral action by one child. Ontario's substitute-decision legislation, for example, provides that where two or more attorneys are appointed, they act jointly unless the power of attorney specifies another arrangement. Similar mechanisms exist in other Canadian jurisdictions.

Making the document continuing or enduring, as in option B, addresses whether authority survives subsequent incapacity; it does not solve the concern regarding Joseph's unilateral decisions. Restricting the power to a particular time period may eventually terminate his authority but does not provide ongoing shared oversight. Option D is particularly unsuitable because the identified concern already involves property decisions; giving Joseph sole property authority would not address that risk.

Joint appointment therefore directly responds to the governance problem while allowing the parents to retain a family-based attorney structure.

FPII reference/topic: Estate Planning — powers of attorney; appointment of multiple attorneys; joint authority; protection of property.

===============