This case involves Lyse Scharfe (“Lyse”), acting as Attorney for Property and Personal Care for her mother, Yvette Poirier, (“Yvette”) against the Estate of Paul Poirier (the “Estate of Paul”). The dispute centers on the ownership of a property and funds allegedly misappropriated by Paul from Yvette’s bank account. Yvette, aged 106 and suffering from advanced dementia, had her property interest transferred to her son Paul in 2016, which was getting contested.[1]

The main issue was whether Yvette had the capacity to transfer her property interest to Paul in 2016 and whether undue influence was exerted by Paul.[2] Lyse claimed that the transfer was made when Yvette was incapable of consenting due to dementia. Counsel for the Estate of Paul argued that Yvette was capable and agreed to the transfer with the encouragement of her children.[3]

Lyse obtained an expert opinion in the form of a “retrospective capacity assessment” of Yvette from Dr. Joel Sadavoy (“Dr. Sadavoy”), a specialist in geriatric psychiatry and Professor of Psychiatry in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Toronto.[4] This report found that Yvette did not have sufficient mental capacity to make competently reasoned decisions to transfer her home to Paul in that she would have been unable to reasonable foresee the outcome of her decision.[5] On the other hand, counsel for the Estate of Paul obtained a retrospective capacity assessment from a licensed capacity assessor, Dr. Alina Kaminska (“Dr. Kaminska”), a psychologist, who concluded that in 2016 Ms. Poirier was capable of managing her property when she transferred title from joint ownership between herself and Paul, to sole ownership by Paul. She found that Yvette was capable because she found there to be no compelling evidence of mental or cognitive limitations.[6]

The court ultimately preferred Dr. Sadavoy’s analysis as he focused on the evidence provided by Lyse and a number of physicians, as to Yvette’s behaviours and evident cognitive limitations. The court also concluded that in instances where Dr. Sadavoy’s clinical opinions and analysis or those of Dr. Carriere (both geriatric psychiatrists) differ from that of Dr. Kaminska, the court preferred the opinions offered by Drs. Sadavoy and Carriere.

The court concluded that Yvette Poirier lacked the capacity to execute the 2016 conveyance due to significant dementia, as supported by expert testimony from Dr. Joel Sadavoy.[7]

The court also found that the presumption of undue influence applied, given Paul’s role as caregiver and Power of Attorney, and the lack of independent legal advice for Yvette Poirier. 

The 2016 property conveyance was set aside, and Yvette Poirier’s pre-2016 interest in the property was restored.[8]

[1] Lyse Scharfe in her capacity as Attorney for Property and Attorney for Personal Care of Yvette Poirier v. Estate of Paul Poirier, 2025 ONSC 482 at paras 1-2.

[2] Ibid at para 3.

[3] Ibid at paras 13, 15.

[4] Ibid at para 17.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid at para 18.

[7] Ibid at para 17, 27.

[8] Ibid at para 31.