In his book Capacity and Undue Influence, John Poyser describes testamentary fraud as “an effort to fool a person into believing a false state of affairs, […] causing that person to make a testamentary gift that otherwise would not have been made.”
In Shapiro v. Shapiro, a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the late Mrs. Shapiro’s (“the Deceased’s”) daughter, Tracy, and her surviving husband, Jack, alleged that the Deceased’s son Michael had unduly influenced her to remove Tracy from the estate. According to Tracy, Michael had convinced Ms. Shapiro that Tracy was back together with her husband, Jo, who was supposedly scheming to steal any money Tracy inherited. As always, the party challenging the Will bore the onus of proving undue influence.
Ms. Shapiro had inherited her father’s business empire and felt that it was her duty to protect his legacy for future generations. In 2007, her family lent $60,000 to Tracy for her wedding to Jo. This loan was eventually paid off by Tracy, which Ms. Shapiro saw as theft on Jo’s part. The animosity between Ms. Shapiro and Jo would only continue to grow over the years, especially when a private investigator hired by Ms. Shapiro and Michael revealed that Jo was not a physician at the Jewish General Hospital, nor did he own houses in Montreal (as he had claimed). Ms. Shapiro even believed that Jo “could possibly have another family.”
In 2018, Michael received messages on Facebook from a mysterious woman named Roseanna, purporting to have been engaged to Jo for ten years. According to Michael, Jo had swindled Roseanna of all of her money. Ms. Shapiro was understandably upset, warning Tracy that “if she did not leave Jo, it would be the biggest financial mistake that she would ever make.”
Tracy and Jo ended up separating, but their continuing contact aroused Ms. Shapiro’s suspicions. In the Fall of 2018, Michael spotted Tracy and Jo having dinner together, which he reported to Ms. Shapiro, admittedly knowing that it would result in Tracy being cut out of the Will. Ms. Shapiro told her lawyer “No amount for Tracy,” executing her Will only a few weeks later.
Justice Jensen found that the Deceased’s beliefs were generally not “based on lies or falsehoods”. However, the question remained of whether Michael fed into Ms. Shapiro’s unfounded beliefs about Jo’s mafia involvement and criminal history. The court analyzed the indicators of undue influence, the only truly relevant one being her poor health. It was found that Michael did not unduly influence his mother, but rather that Ms. Shapiro independently decided to remove Tracy from the Will in response to Jo’s dubious behavior: “[the Deceased] made up her own mind, gradually over time and in response to the behaviour and circumstances surrounding her family. She received advice from her professional advisors as to how to structure her Estate, but in the end, she did what she thought was necessary to protect the Swedlove Legacy.” The judge concluded that she hoped the family would honor Ms. Shapiro’s dying wish for reconciliation.
Thanks for reading