Amazon Films has recently released a very dark new film called “I Care A Lot”, starring Rosamund Pike and Peter Dinklage. It’s the story of a crooked legal guardian who drains the savings of her elderly wards and meets her match when a woman she tries to swindle turns out to be more than she first appears.
It’s not an instant classic and it’s total fiction, but it got us thinking about real-life scenarios where a manipulative guardian may be taking advantage of someone and what can be done. We were instantly reminded of the saga of Beach Boys legend, and “Inventor of California,” Brian Wilson.
In May of this year, it will be 55 years since the release of the solid gold classic, Pet Sounds. A testament to the genius of Brian Wilson, Pet Sounds paved the way for other classic records like Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. But a grueling creative and recording process and an abundance of recreational drugs saw Wilson suffer a nervous breakdown in 1965 and he wouldn’t tour with the band again until 1983. Wilson began suffering auditory hallucinations in mid-1965 which persisted throughout his life; he also became increasingly paranoid and anti-social, leading to a disintegration of relations between him and his bandmates, culminating in the famous episode where he refused to get out of bed for two years.
In an effort to assist Wilson with his myriad of physical and psychological issues, Wilson’s family enlisted the services of California psychotherapist Dr. Eugene Landy – And a dark story took a darker turn. For the next nine or ten years, Landy exploited and manipulated Wilson – entering into business contracts worth 25% of future record earnings, while also administering psychotropic drugs, moving into Wilson’s Bel Air estate, supervising his every move, and limiting any contact with the outside world. According to this Diane Sawyer interview from October 10, 1991, Landy was billing Wilson up to one million dollars a year, including $25,000 a month for “vitamins.”
It took nine lawsuits and several years for Wilson to be released from Landy’s “care,” and Wilson has been doing much better over the last few decades, but we still wondered: What if Wilson lived in Ontario and didn’t have any family, or Diane Sawyers, trying to fight for his freedom? What if Landy or the unscrupulous guardian in I Care A Lot were operating in Ontario?
Enter the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (the “PGT”).
While any concerns of physical or mental abuse should immediately be brought to the attention of local authorities as soon as possible, the PGT also has significant investigative and enforcement powers under the Substitute Decisions Act. Where financial concerns are present, the PGT has investigative powers under section 27 and where the integrity of the person is at issue, section 62.
Both sections recognize that “serious illness or injury, or deprivation of liberty or personal security, are serious adverse effects” and the PGT shall investigate. The PGT is provided extensive powers that include entry without a warrant, assistance of the police, as well as bringing emergency applications before the court to intervene as a temporary guardian.
So while Brian Wilson (and more recently Britney Spears) made headlines, there are strong police and government mechanisms in place to protect vulnerable people from abuse and exploitation. But the one thing that Wilson (and Ms. Spears) had, was some kind of connection to people. Isolation from family, friends, or community, is one of the most dangerous risks to vulnerable people.
Thanks for reading,
Ian Hull and Daniel Enright
Earlier this year, our colleague Doreen So, blogged in two parts (here and here) on the matter of PGT v Cherneyko. It is a blog that discusses a litany of failures by an attorney for property. While Doreen covered the facts in full, they are worth repeating here in part:
“Jean Cherneyko is a 90-year-old woman. Jean did not have any children of her own. Her closest known relative was a niece in the US. By the time of the PGT application, Jean was in a long-term care home. Prior to that, Jean lived alone in the same home that she had lived in since 1969. Jean had a friend named Tina who she had known for about five years. On August 15, 2019, Jean and Tina went to a lawyer’s office. Jean named Tina as her attorney for property and personal care. Jean also made a new Will which named Tina as the estate trustee and sole beneficiary of her estate. A week or so later on August 27th, Jean and Tina went to Jean’s bank where $250,000.00 was transferred to Tina […]”
The PGT applied to take over as guardian for property and, among other things, to set aside the gift to Tina. The court agreed and ordered the $250,000 returned to Jean on the basis of resulting trust.
In a novel approach to the law of gifts, the court in Cherneyko relied on Pecore to establish that the gift ought to be returned, saying: “The leading Canadian case on the law of gifts, the Supreme Court of Canada in Pecore v Pecore, 2007 SCC 17 (CanLII) at paras. 24-26 established that where a gratuitous transfer of property is found, there is a presumption of a resulting trust. The onus falls to the recipient to rebut the presumption.” In the court’s view, Tina failed to rebut the presumption.
But this represents a new application of the Supreme Court’s analysis and it’s worth revisiting Pecore.
In 2007, Justice Rothstein, writing for a unanimous court (Justice Abella concurring) looked closely at gratuitous gifts of joint bank accounts, between parents and children, and whether the presumption of resulting trust and advancement applied in modern times:
“The presumption of resulting trust is a rebuttable presumption of law and general rule that applies to gratuitous transfers. When a transfer is challenged, the presumption allocates the legal burden of proof. Thus, where a transfer is made for no consideration, the onus is placed on the transferee to demonstrate that a gift was intended: see Waters’ Law of Trusts, at p. 375, and E. E. Gillese and M. Milczynski, The Law of Trusts (2nd ed. 2005), at p. 110. This is so because equity presumes bargains, not gifts.”
The decision in Cherneyko represents a significant expansion of the principles of Pecore by applying them to inter vivos gifts between unrelated adults. Traditionally, if the courts determine that a transferor lacked the requisite capacity, the gift is void as the transferor lacked the capacity to form the proper intention to gift. Ball v. Mannin, an almost 200-year-old UK case established the original test for granting a gift and held that a person had capacity if the person was “capable of understanding what he did by executing the deed in question, when its general purport was fully explained to him.” The Supreme Court has previously outlined a separate test in Geffen v Goodman Estate in 1991, examining the nature of the relationship itself, and applying a presumption of undue influence where there is the presence of a dominant relationship. While the failed gift in Cherneyko was ultimately returned under a resulting trust, it will be fascinating to see if other courts also continue this expansion of Pecore. We’ll keep you posted.
Thanks for reading!
Ian Hull and Daniel Enright
Right from the start, 2021 is starting to look like it will be another extraordinary year of historic significance. In the world of estates, trusts, and capacity litigation, there was a decision released on January 5th where serious breaches of fiduciary duty by an attorney for property were found and the PGT was ordered to take over. The facts in Public Guardian and Trustee v. Cherneyko et al, 2021 ONSC 107, read like a law school case study and the reasons are worth noting.
Jean Cherneyko is a 90 year old woman. Jean did not have any children of her own. Her closest known relative was a niece in the US. By the time of the PGT application, Jean was in a long term care home. Prior to that, Jean lived alone in the same home that she had lived in since 1969. Jean had a friend named Tina who she had known for about five years. On August 15, 2019, Jean and Tina went to a lawyer’s office. Jean named Tina as her attorney for property and personal care. Jean also made a new Will which named Tina as the estate trustee and sole beneficiary of her estate. A week or so later on August 27th, Jean and Tina went to Jean’s bank where $250,000.00 was transferred to Tina, and $195,329.50 was transferred to Jean’s niece. Days later on August 31st, Jean was hospitalized for acute delirium and progressive cognitive decline. During Jean’s admission, Tina noted that Jean had become increasingly confused over the prior few months and that Jean exhibited lethargic behaviour and complained of bodily soreness. On September 1, 2019, Jean was diagnosed as being cognitively impaired. Thereafter, Jean was transferred to long term care on October 1st based on Tina’s authorization as Jean’s attorney for property. Short time after that, Tina’s son moved into Jean’s home and the PGT started to investigate in March, 2020 when the bank froze Jean’s accounts.
As a result of their investigation, the PGT brought an application to remove and replace Tina as Jean’s attorney for property. The PGT also sought to set aside the $250,000.00 transfer to Tina and the return of various other sums that were received by Tina, which totalled approximately $350,000.00.
First, the Court found that the transfer of $250,000.00 to Tina was not a gift. Tina failed to rebut the presumption of resulting trust for the gratuitous transfer. Tina put forth evidence that there was a bank manager who spoke to Jean at the time of the transfer, and that the banker told Jean that she would have still have enough money to live after the transfers to Tina and the her niece. This evidence was tendered through Tina’s affidavit without any direct evidence from the banker. The Court disregarded Tina’s reliance on the banker’s involvement because Tina herself had deposed that Jean was having “moments of delirium and irrationality, her condition fluctuated between lucidity and confusion” in late August, 2019 (para. 31) and there was no evidence that the banker was informed.
The Court also seriously questioned whether any of the payments to Tina were truly what “Jean wanted” because Jean’s power of attorney for property clearly stated that there was to be no compensation. The Court agreed with the PGT’s contention that Tina should not have paid herself $2,000.00 per month in compensation and on how that sum was unreasonably high given that Jean’s long term care costs were only $2,701.61 per month.
The value of the transfers, which was about a quarter of Jean’s net worth at the time, when considered in the context of Jean’s September 1st diagnosis also led the Court to find that Jean lacked capacity to gift Tina such a substantial sum.
The Court’s focus on context, timing, and proportionality as benchmarks in its analysis are very important for litigators and advisors to keep in mind.
Stayed tuned this week for Part 2 on Cherneyko: the breaches of fiduciary duty.
Thanks for reading,
Sometimes there is a grey area when it comes to a person’s loss of capacity, and the time when his or her attorney for property first began to act on an incapable’s behalf. In such a situation, it can be difficult to determine the starting date for an attorney’s fiduciary accounting period.
The recent decision of The Public Guardian and Trustee v Willis at al, 2020 ONSC 3660, dealt with this kind of situation. One of the issues was whether the respondent should be required to pass his accounts for the period before he became the attorney for property for his mother, Mrs. Willis.
The respondent was his mother’s only living child, and was acting as her attorney pursuant to a power of attorney for property dated May 2, 2018. Mrs. Willis was assessed as incapable of managing her property in September 2018, but the decision notes that she had been “clearly suffering from some cognitive deficits prior to June 2018”.
The Public Guardian and Trustee (the “PGT”) sought to have the respondent provide an accounting back to January 1, 2015, because the respondent had arranged several mortgages on his mother’s behalf in that period. The respondent, however, only agreed to pass his accounts starting from May 2, 2018 when he became his mother’s attorney for property. One of the main reasons that the respondent did not want to pass his accounts prior to that period was due to the expense, because it was clear that Mrs. Willis was insolvent, and the respondent would likely have to personally bear the costs of passing his accounts. The PGT clarified during the hearing that it was not seeking court format accounts for the period from 2015-2018, but only “justifiable explanations of money coming in and out of his mother’s RBC account and how mortgage advances were spent plus all relevant disclosure.”
The court found that the respondent had assisted his mother with paying bills and arranging mortgages prior to the time that she was assessed as incapable. It was also noted in the decision that there was “no doubt” that even while Mrs. Willis was capable, she was unsophisticated, vulnerable, and relied on the respondent. The respondent also had access to his mother’s bank account before January 1, 2015.
The court held that, even if an individual is not specifically appointed in a fiduciary role (such as an attorney) one must look at the types of duties that the individual was carrying out to determine if they were acting in a fiduciary capacity. On this basis, the court found that the respondent had been acting as a fiduciary for Mrs. Willis for some time, and determined that he should provide detailed explanations of financial transactions upon the PGT’s request from January 1, 2015 to May 1, 2018 (in addition to the passing of accounts to which the respondent had consented starting from May 2, 2018).
Thanks for reading,
You may also enjoy these other blog posts:
We have previously written about the Estate Arbitration and Litigation Management (“EALM”) initiative, which has been spearheaded in an effort to keep estate litigation matters moving forward during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our previous blogs on the EALM initiative can be found here and here.
In its Notice to the Profession dated May 5, 2020, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice announced that it will not resume in-person hearings until July 6, 2020, at the earliest. The notice further states that the scope of matters being heard by courts virtually will be expanded in the near future, but the particulars regarding such an expansion have not yet been released.
While access to the courts remains limited, EALM is available as a means of obtaining assistance in the determination of procedural and/or interim (and certain substantive) matters that are not necessarily urgent in nature and not currently eligible for a virtual court hearing. The matters set out in an EALM agreement can be arbitrated by senior estates practitioners in a timely and cost-efficient manner. EALM arbitrations can take place via teleconference or video conference, depending on the preferences of the parties and the arbitrator.
As previously indicated, EALM is not intended to in any way circumvent the role of the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (the “PGT”) or the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (the “OCL”) where the estate matter involves unprotected charitable interests or the rights of persons under legal disability. Since our last blog post regarding EALM was posted, the initiative has received the support of the PGT and the OCL and our precedent EALM agreement has been further updated to recognize the potential role that the PGT and/or the OCL may have in EALM process. Best EALM practices include ensuring that the PGT and/or the OCL are provided with the opportunity to participate, and further include the following:
- Where any substantive issue to be submitted to arbitration affects the rights of persons under legal disability, or an unprotected charitable interest, the parties must provide notice of their intention to enter into an EALM agreement to the PGT and/or the OCL;
- The PGT and/or the OCL should be served at the early stages of a matter, particularly when the issues will have a significant effect upon the interests that they represent;
- Where the PGT and/or the OCL are participating in a proceeding, their consent to proceed to EALM is required;
- Where it is necessary for a court to appoint the PGT or the OCL as litigation guardian, each office may consider requests to engage in the EALM process after they have been appointed as litigation guardian (rather than prior to their formal appointment); and
- An arbitrator’s decision to resolve substantive issues involving the rights of persons under legal disability will be considered to be a final settlement, which requires court approval under Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
A revised copy of our precedent EALM agreement, which has been updated in consultation with the PGT and the OCL in consideration of the comments set out above, can be found here. An updated list of senior estates practitioners who are prepared to assist as EALM arbitrators is available here. I again thank all of those who have demonstrated an interest in assisting other members of the Estates Bar as arbitrators.
EALM is a cost-effective measure to move matters forward and provides the parties to litigation with more control than the traditional court process. Once the courts resume full operations, we can only anticipate that they will be at full capacity and hearing dates will be in high demand. In light of this, we are hopeful that EALM will continue to assist parties to estate litigation and their counsel as a suitable and efficient alternative to in-court hearings.
If you are interested in introducing EALM into your own practice, or if you are interested in being added to our roster of EALM arbitrators, please contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Thank you for reading and stay safe.
A decision released earlier this week highlights the importance of a complete Management Plan supported by evidence when seeking one’s appointment as guardian of property.
Sometimes, the necessity of filing a Management Plan is viewed as a formality without proper attention to the details of the plan. However, the failure to file an appropriate Management Plan may prevent the appointment of a guardian of property, putting the administration of the incapable’s property in limbo.
In Connolly v Connolly and PGT, 2018 ONSC 5880 (CanLII), Justice Corthorn declined to approve of a Management Plan filed by the applicant and, accordingly, refused to appoint her as guardian of property. The Management Plan was rejected for the following reasons (among others):
- it did not address an anticipated increase in expenses over time (including when the applicant was no longer available to serve as the incapable’s caregiver and he may incur alternate housing costs);
- there was no first-hand evidence from BMO Nesbitt Burns or Henderson Structured Settlement with respect to the net settlement funds in excess of $1.4M and their payout and investment in a portfolio on the incapable’s behalf;
- the Court was concerned that stock market volatility could threaten to deplete the invested assets;
- the Public Guardian and Trustee had strongly recommended that the applicant post security, the expense of which was reflected as a deduction from the incapable’s assets (while not suggested that this was unreasonable, Justice Corthorn took issue with the absence of any case law or statutory provision cited by the applicant in support of the payment of the expense by the incapable rather than the applicant herself); and
- while the applicant had agreed to act as guardian without compensation, the plan did not contemplate how compensation would be funded if claimed by a potential successor guardian.
Notwithstanding that neither the incapable nor the Public Guardian and Trustee had opposed the Management Plan or the appointment of the applicant as guardian of property, Justice Corthorn found that the appointment of a guardian to manage over one million dollars in settlement funds was “contentious” and, accordingly, under Rule 39.01(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, direct evidence from a representative of the financial institution was required. In short, although the applicant was accepted as being a suitable candidate for appointment as guardian of property (and it was anticipated by the Court that she would ultimately be appointed), the Court was not satisfied on the evidence available that the management of the incapable’s property in accordance with the contents of the Management Plan was consistent with the man’s best interests.
While Justice Corthorn declared the individual respondent incapable and in need of assistance by a guardian of property, Her Honour adjourned the balance of the matter, suggesting that the applicant’s appointment as guardian of property could be revisited once additional evidence was filed in support of the contents of the Management Plan and/or the plan was further revised.
Thank you for reading.
Other blog entries and podcasts that may be of interest:
I recently came across several articles (one of which can be found here) regarding the elder financial abuse of a senior gentleman in Moncton, New Brunswick. Around 2013, Mr. Goguen had been living in the home that he owned, with tenants residing in part of the property. Upon deciding to sell his home, Mr. Goguen was referred to Ms. Hannah and Mr. Poirier, licensed real estate agents in New Brunswick. After the home had been listed for sale for some time, without success, Ms. Hannah apparently told Mr. Goguen that his home was in such deplorable condition that it would be impossible to sell without making certain repairs (which Ms. Hannah says Mr. Goguen could not afford) and removing the tenants (whom Ms. Hannah has claimed were using drugs and not paying rent).
As a result of the alleged difficulty in selling Mr. Goguen’s house, he, Ms. Hannah, and Mr. Poirier entered into an agreement whereby Ms. Hannah and Mr. Poirier purchased Mr. Goguen’s home. The terms of the arrangement were not favourable to Mr. Goguen, and it appears that Ms. Hannah and Mr. Poirier did not follow through on certain aspects of the agreement.
The Financial and Consumer Services Commission, which regulates real estate agents in New Brunswick, has revoked Ms. Hannah and Mr. Poirier’s real estate licenses. The Commission stated that Ms. Hannah and Mr. Poirier committed financial abuse of a senior and took “outrageous and egregious advantage” of Mr. Goguen. The Public Trustee of New Brunswick has now become involved on Mr. Goguen’s behalf, and has filed a statement of claim against Ms. Hannah and Mr. Poirier, seeking $83,320.00, characterized as the amount owing to Mr. Goguen.
We’ve blogged about elder abuse a number of times. Unfortunately, due to factors such as isolation, physical difficulties, and cognitive impairments, elderly people are often vulnerable to abuse. Given this vulnerability, and the circumstances in which abuse occurs, it can go undetected for a significant amount of time. In such situations, it may be too late to make the elderly person “whole” if the abuse is not discovered until it is too late.
Fortunately in Mr. Goguen’s case, despite the fact that it took a number of years, the Public Trustee discovered the abuse and is now taking steps to protect Mr. Goguen and recoup funds owed to him by his abusers. However, the Public Trustee is seeking the amount of approximately $83,000.00, which may not fully reimburse Mr. Goguen for the value of the house had it been sold to a normal third-party purchaser. Additionally, one of the articles also notes that Mr. Goguen had named Ms. Hannah and Mr. Poirier as his attorneys, and also executed a will naming them as executors and beneficiaries of his estate. It is unclear whether the Public Trustee has sought any relief in this regard. As such, even though the Public Trustee may be pursuing relief on Mr. Goguen’s behalf, it is an unfortunate possibility that he may continue to feel the effects of the abuse.
Thanks for reading.
Other blog posts that may be of interest:
You are the Estate Trustee of an estate in which the testator left a substantial portion of the residue to certain specifically named charities. The charities who are named as beneficiaries are well established large charitable organizations whom you have corresponded with directly. Such charities have retained counsel to represent them concerning their interests in the estate, and such counsel have in turn requested that you commence an Application to Pass Accounts regarding your administration of the estate.
In preparing the Application to Pass Accounts you turn your mind to who you should serve with the Application. Rule 74.18(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that an Application to Pass Accounts shall be served on “each person who has a contingent or vested interest in the estate“.
Although you are aware of the general supervisory role that the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (the “PGT”) has over charities in the Province of Ontario, as the charities in this instance are well established and represented by counsel, you question whether you need to serve the PGT in addition to the charities with the Application to Pass Accounts. It is, after all, the charities themselves who have a “contingent or vested interest in the estate“, and as the PGT and the charities would be representing the same financial interest you question whether it is necessary.
The requirement to serve the PGT with any Application to Pass Accounts where a charitable bequest is involved is established by section 49(8) of the Estates Act, which provides:
“Where by the terms of a will or other instrument in writing under which such an executor, administrator or trustee acts, real or personal property or any right or interest therein, or proceeds therefrom have heretofore been given, or are hereafter to be vested in any person, executor, administrator or trustee for any religious, educational, charitable or other purpose, or are to be applied by them to or for any such purpose, notice of taking the accounts shall be served upon the Public Guardian and Trustee.” [emphasis added]
The requirement to serve the PGT with any Application to Pass Accounts when a charitable bequest is involved as established by section 49(8) of the Estates Act exists in addition to the general requirement to serve all individuals with a “contingent or vested interest” as established by rule 74.18(3). To this respect, when a Will leaves a bequest to a specifically named charity, the Application to Pass Accounts must be served upon the specifically named charity as well as the PGT. Although from a practical standpoint the PGT’s active participation in an Application to Pass Accounts where a charity is representing itself is unlikely, with the PGT deferring to the charity to protect their own interest, the service requirements remain nonetheless, and both entities could in theory participate in the Application to Pass Accounts, and both could in theory file separate Notices of Objection to Accounts.
Thank you for reading.
The applicability of limitation periods to estates, trusts, and capacity matters is crucial for litigators to consider. In a recent decision of the Superior Court of Justice, the Court was asked to consider the application of the limitation period in Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act (“SLRA”) to a claim that was advanced by the Public Guardian and Trustee (the “PGT”) as the litigation guardian of an incapable support claimant.
Shaw v. Barber, 2017 ONSC 2155, is an important precedent for the proposition that limitation periods do not run against the incapable person from the day that the PGT becomes his/her statutory guardian of property. By operation of section 16(5) of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, the PGT automatically becomes an incapable person’s statutory guardian of property the moment they receive a certificate of incapacity from the assessor. In Shaw v. Barber, the dependant support claimant, Lois Shaw, was assessed and found to be incapable of managing property on February 16, 2015 and a copy of the certificate was sent to the PGT on or about February 25, 2015.
Prior to the assessment, Ms. Shaw lived with Frank Cyril Barber on the date of his death, although they were not married. Mr. Barber died in August, 2014, leaving a Will which named his son as the sole Estate Trustee and beneficiary of his Estate. A Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee with a Will was issued to Mr. Barber’s son on February 5, 2015. Pursuant to section 61(1) of the SLRA, an application for dependant support may not be made six months after the grant of probate, subject to the Court’s discretion in section 61(2) to allow claims against the undistributed portion of an estate. Without considering the Court’s discretion in section 61(2) of the Act, Justice McNamara found that Ms. Shaw’s claim for dependant support was not statute barred despite the fact that it was issued, one year after six months from probate, on August 5, 2016.
In his reasoning, Justice McNamara considered the tolling provision applicable to incapable persons while he/she is not represented by a litigation guardian in section 7 of the Limitations Act, 2002 (which applies to the section 61 of the SLRA). The turning point then becomes whether a guardian of property is automatically a litigation guardian in relation to the claim at issue since a guardian has the power to do anything the incapable person may do except make a will. In this case, there was an affidavit from PGT counsel which explained the time consuming investigations involved when the PGT becomes a statutory guardian of property because of the lack of first-hand information from the incapable individual. Justice McNamara determined that a guardian of property shall act as litigation guardian when he/she has determined that there is a basis for exercising their authority in that role, and that imposing a limitation period from the date in which the PGT becomes statutory guardian is contrary to the Limitations Act and it would create impossible timelines and potential injustice for this vulnerable group. Furthermore, Justice McNamara was also persuaded by the fact that the Estate Trustee in this case will not be prejudiced by the delay, given that he is also the sole beneficiary, and that he was aware all along that the PGT was considering a claim against the Estate.
This case is also an example of the latitude that Courts may accord to large-scale claimants as seen in 407 ETR Concession Company Limited v. Day, 2016 ONCA 709.
Please do not hesitate to contact our firm for a copy of Justice McNamara’s reasons in Shaw v. Barber and click here for comments from Russel Molot, counsel for the PGT in this matter, as reported in the Law Times.
This week on Hull on Estates, David Smith and Lisa Haseley discuss a recent decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court, Rosinski v British Columbia (Public Guardian and Trustee), 2016 BCSC 1204
Click here for more information on Lisa Haseley.