Refusal to approve the final account of the guardian and appointment of a third party to establish it

Facts

[A.] was appointed provisional guardian of [C.] by the Justice of the Peace of the district of Vevey on August 2, 2007. Subsequently, B., C.'s son, requested the dismissal of [A.], which was ordered on July 24, 2008. The Justice of the Peace then appointed Ms. [D.] as provisional guardian.

On December 3, 2008, the Justice of the Peace closed the investigation aimed at the interdiction of [C.], lifted the measure of provisional guardianship and relieved Ms. [D.] of her mandate as provisional guardian. It instituted a voluntary guardianship measure in favor of [C.] and appointed the notary Ms. [D.] as guardian. The Justice of the Peace also appointed [E.] to establish the accounts of the management of C.'s assets for the period from August 6, 2007 to July 10, 2008 and invited [A.] to provide it with any relevant documents relating to this period.

[A.] appealed to the Cantonal Court of the Canton of Vaud, which declared the appeal moot, while specifying that it was the responsibility of the Justice of the Peace to examine the conformity of the accounts, to approve or reject them and to have them established by a third party, by issuing a new decision that could be appealed.

On June 16, 2009, the Justice of the Peace refused to approve the accounts produced on March 5, 2009 by [A.] and appointed the Fiduciary [E.] to establish the accounts for the period from August 6, 2007 to July 10, 2008, at the expense of the dismissed guardian, A.

Considerations

The Federal Tribunal considers that the decision refusing to approve the final account of the guardian and entrusting a third party with the task of establishing it is not final within the meaning of Art. 90 LTF, but incidental within the meaning of Art. 93 para. 1 LTF. Indeed, this decision constitutes a step towards the (final) decision approving the final report and account (Art. 451 CC) and relieving the guardian whose mission has ended (Art. 453 para. 1 in fine CC) of his duties (Art. 445 para. 1 CC).

The Federal Tribunal rejects the appellant's argument that the challenged…