Sometimes, family conflicts arise in ways no one expects, and Scharfe v. Estate of Poirier, a recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision is a perfect example of how things can go wrong when an elderly parent’s assets are involved. This case is about Mrs. Poirier, a 106-year-old woman now living in a nursing home, her late son Paul, who took care of her for years and held Power of Attorney, and her two daughters, Lyse and Denise, who later questioned how their brother had handled their mother’s finances and property.

For years, Paul lived with his mother, looking after her and managing the family home. He was the only one of the three siblings who stayed with her, while Lyse and Denise moved out and started their own lives. In 2016, when Mrs. Poirier was 98 years old and suffering from dementia, she signed a document transferring her share of the home to Paul, making him the sole owner. The understanding among the siblings at the time was that Paul would get the house, while Lyse and Denise would each withdraw $50,000 from their mother’s bank account, with Paul also giving them an additional $10,000 each. It seemed like a fair family agreement at the time—until years later, when Lyse and Denise realized how little was left to support their mother’s ongoing care.

As Mrs. Poirier’s health declined and her expenses grew, her daughters started to question whether their mother had truly understood what she was doing when she signed away her share of the home. They also discovered that Paul had taken additional funds from their mother’s bank account without their knowledge. By the time of his death in 2021, he had already admitted to owing $32,000 back to her estate. This led Lyse to challenge the 2016 property transfer in court, arguing that their mother had lacked the mental capacity to sign it—and even if she had capacity, Paul had used undue influence to get her to do it.

The case came down to two key legal questions: first, was Mrs. Poirier mentally capable of transferring her interest in the home in 2016? And second, did Paul use his position as her caregiver and Power of Attorney to pressure her into doing so?

To answer the first question, the court heard from two experts who conducted retrospective capacity assessments. One, a geriatric psychiatrist, concluded that by 2016, Mrs. Poirier’s dementia was too advanced for her to appreciate the consequences of transferring her home. The other, a psychologist, found no strong evidence that she was incapable at the time. After reviewing both opinions, the court sided with the geriatric psychiatrist, determining that Mrs. Poirier likely did not have the capacity to understand what she was doing when she gave up her share of the home.

Even if she had been capable, the court found that Paul was in a position of power over his mother—living with her, handling her banking, and making decisions about her care. That created a presumption of undue influence, meaning Paul had to prove that his mother’s decision was truly independent and free from pressure. Since there was no evidence that she received independent legal advice or even fully understood what was happening, the court ruled that the 2016 transfer could not stand.

As a result, the judge ordered that the property be returned to the way it was before the transfer—jointly owned by Mrs. Poirier and Paul. However, since Paul had passed away, his share was now part of his estate, meaning further legal proceedings would be needed to sort out what happens next. To make things even more complicated, Paul had transferred the home to his wife before his death, and a lawyer had registered a $1 million mortgage on it for legal fees, which the court ordered to be removed

This case is a clear reminder of why proper legal advice is crucial when dealing with an elderly parent’s assets. If Mrs. Poirier had received independent legal advice or a formal capacity assessment at the time of the transfer, this dispute might never have happened. Instead, the family ended up in court years later, dealing with costly litigation and emotional stress.

It’s a situation that many families could face—an aging parent, a caregiver child making decisions on their behalf, and siblings who may or may not agree with those choices. What Scharfe v. Estate of Poirier makes clear is that when major financial assets like a family home are involved, things should be done properly, with independent legal advice and safeguards in place. Otherwise, years down the line, families can find themselves fighting in court over what should have been a simple matter of ensuring a parent’s well-being.

Thanks for reading!