Can a guardian be found to have gone beyond what the statute under which he holds his office empowers him to do?

The real question in any given case is not status as such but whether in the particular case, on the evidence, the guardian has gone beyond what the statute under which he holds his office empowers him to do, for it is a fundamental proposition of the common law that a power may only be used for the purpose for which it is conferred and not for any ulterior purpose. See Roncarelli v. Duplessis, 1959 CanLII 50 (SCC), [1959] S.C.R. 121. If the answer to that question is "yes", the next question is whether the statute under which the appointment is made provides a remedy for abuse of office by the guardian in which case the statutory remedy should be invoked and not the parens patriae jurisdiction.