Re Hartin Estate, 2024 ONSC 5754 (CanLII) tells a compelling story of how family relationships can be strained, when financial management goes awry. In this case, Evelyn, once a self-reliant widow, gradually lost her independence as her health declined. With mounting concerns about her vulnerability and potential exploitation, Evelyn moved in with her daughter-in-law, Mary, in 2013. At that time, Mary not only assumed daily caregiving responsibilities but also became Evelyn’s attorney for property. When Evelyn passed away in 2016 at the age of 92, Mary was named estate trustee under Evelyn’s will—a decision that set off a bitter dispute with Evelyn’s other daughter, Sharon.
The facts revealed a series of financial transactions that raised red flags. As Evelyn’s condition worsened, several significant transfers occurred. Joint bank and investment accounts, which lawfully are presumed to remain the property of an elderly parent unless there is compelling evidence of an intended gift, were manipulated in ways that were never clearly explained. Among these, an $80,000 payment tied to property renovations stood out as particularly problematic, given the lack of independent legal advice or proper documentation. Sharon argued that these transactions were procured by undue influence, as they took place when Evelyn was at her most vulnerable.
The court’s analysis delved deeply into the dynamics of the relationship between Evelyn and Mary. A key element of the court’s reasoning was the inherent power imbalance created when a vulnerable elderly person becomes wholly dependent on a family member for both care and financial management. The court noted that when Evelyn moved in with Mary, the execution of the power of attorney occurred without independent legal counsel—a fact that significantly undermined any claim that Evelyn’s financial decisions were made freely and with full understanding. The presumption of undue influence is not lightly invoked; it requires a careful assessment of the relationship and the circumstances surrounding the financial transactions. In this instance, the court found that the dependency of Evelyn on Mary was evident, as Evelyn’s physical frailties, limited mobility, and deteriorating mental state left her exposed to manipulation.
Furthermore, the court scrutinized the record-keeping practices of Mary in her dual roles. As both attorney for property and estate trustee, she had a fiduciary duty to maintain detailed, transparent records of every transaction. Instead, the evidence showed a pattern of unsubstantiated and poorly documented transfers—ranging from discrepancies in joint account balances to vague explanations for substantial withdrawals and gifts. The court was particularly critical of the $80,000 payment associated with property renovations, noting that without independent corroboration or proper invoices, such sums raised serious doubts about their legitimacy
Ultimately, the Court determined that Mary had breached her fiduciary duties by failing to maintain proper financial records and by exploiting the power imbalance inherent in her relationship with Evelyn. The judge ordered her to reimburse Evelyn’s estate a total of $127,167.70—a sum reflecting the combined value of disputed transfers, unaccounted funds, and questionable gifts. In addition to the financial remedy, the court revoked her appointment as estate trustee and denied her any compensation for her services.
Thanks for reading!