In a recent decision of the Superior Court, Justice Mew found that,

“In appropriate circumstances, I conclude that the relationship between an elderly resident of a retirement home and a personal support worker can also be a fiduciary one”.

Hoyle (Estate) v. Gibson-Heath, 2017 ONSC 4481, is a civil proceeding that was commenced after Ms. Gibson-Heath, a personal support worker, was criminally convicted of stealing $229,000.00 from Clifford Hoyle, an elderly resident of the retirement home where Ms. Gibson-Heath worked.  Ms. Gibson-Heath was sentenced to 18 months of imprisonment and a restitution order was made for her to pay the shortfall between the full amount stolen and any amounts recovered by the Crown.

At the time of the proceeding before Justice Mew, Ms. Gibson-Heath was a discharged bankrupt and the Estate Trustees of the Estate of Clifford Hoyle were seeking an order that the restitution order survives Ms. Gibson-Heath’s bankruptcy and a civil judgment in the amount of the shortfall amongst other relief.  Justice Mew determined that the restitution order survives Ms. Gibson-Heath’s bankruptcy pursuant to section 178(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act but he also went further to consider whether section 178(1)(d) would also apply as it relates to  “any debt or liability arising out of fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity or, in the Province of Quebec, as a trustee or administrator of the property of others”.

Justice Mew’s analysis can be found at paragraphs 16 to 19 of his reasons.  Of note, his Honour commented as follows,

“Ms. Gibson-Heath’s role was to look after Mr. Hoyle.  To act in his best interests.  As an elderly gentleman, who was already in the early stages of dementia when he started to reside at Fairfield Manor East at the end of 2006, Mr. Hoyle was undoubtedly vulnerable to any abuse of the trust that he placed in those who cared for him.”

Ms. Gibson-Heath did not respond to this proceeding and Justice Mew also found that this was an appropriate case for substantial indemnity costs due to Ms. Gibson-Heath’s fraudulent conduct (click here for the costs decision).

Thanks for reading!

Doreen So

#1429918