Retirement and Removal of Trustees

You are currently browsing the archive for the Retirement and Removal of Trustees category.

The recent Ontario case of Timbers Estate v. Bank of Nova Scotia,[1] illustrates the vulnerability of those who are victims of a catastrophic injury. Jeffrey Timbers was in a car accident in 1993 and remained in a coma until his death in 2005. Who negotiates for someone like him? Who hires the personal injury lawyer or gives the lawyer instructions?  When there is a settlement, who manages the money received? In this case, Jeffrey Timbers’ brother-in-law, Gordon Wood, was appointed his guardian of property[2] and managed the money received from the insurance company. When Mr. Timbers died, his daughter became the estate trustee of his estate. After reviewing the documents, she came to the conclusion that her uncle Mr. Wood had stolen settlement money from the structured settlement payments.   There seemed to be a lot of missing money and Jeffrey Timbers’ daughter, in her capacity as estate trustee, ended up bringing a claim for damages for breach of trust in the amount of $900,000.  While the case itself is interesting, for the purpose of this blog, I want to address the concern about how the process failed Mr. Timbers.  What steps might have been taken to catch an allegedly dishonest power of attorney or guardian of property and better protect someone like Jeffrey Timbers?

 

It may help to review the personal injury claims process for parties under disability.  In Ontario, an injured person may be entitled to make a personal injury claim.[3]  When the injured person is unable to manage his property,[4] he is considered to be a person under disability.[5]   If the injured party has a power of attorney for property, then the person he appointed as his attorney will hire a lawyer who will file the appropriate affidavit with the court so that the attorney can act as the litigation guardian.[6]  If there is no power of attorney, then someone has to go to court to be appointed guardian of property.  Even though someone can file an affidavit to be a litigation guardian without being an attorney for property or a court appointed guardian of property, it is prudent to make an application to court for the appointment of a guardian of property so that, outside the litigation, someone is able to speak on behalf of the injured person who cannot speak on his own behalf.  For example, once the claim is settled, someone has to be able to manage the settlement money.

 

The guardian of property has the ability to do everything the incapable person could have done except make a will. The application to appoint a guardian of property is brought under the Substitute Decision Act (the “SDA”).[7]  There is a process to ensure that the incapable person receives a fair deal and is protected.  Rule 7.08[8] of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure provides that every settlement involving a person under disability requires a judge’s approval.  The judge reviews everything from the quantum of the settlement to the reasonableness of the fees charged by the lawyer.  The judge also reviews affidavits of the litigation guardian and the lawyer acting for the litigation guardian.  These affidavits set out the reasons why the litigation guardian and the lawyer believe the settlement is in the best interests of the person under disability.  Notice must also be provided to the Public Guardian and Trustee (the “PGT”) and the judge may ask the PGT for its views.[9]  Up to that point, there is a protocol in place to protect a victim of a catastrophic injury.  The real risk begins once the settlement is finalized and the insurance company has paid the money.  At that point, the court appoints a guardian of property to manage the assets of someone who has suffered a catastrophic injury. The problem is, after the appointment, there is rarely someone checking up on him or her.

 

One of the problems in these types of cases is that the person who is appointed guardian for property is usually a trusted member of the family.  It may be  the accident victim’s wife, child, parent or sibling who selflessly gives up their rights to compensation to get more for their family member who needs it most.  While the PGT may make spot-checks, there is no one really watching the guardian of property on a regular basis to ensure that the guardian of property is using the money for the benefit of the injured party.  Will the trusted family member act as selflessly as we hope? Unfortunately, as alleged in the Timbers Estate case, there are times when even trusted family members take advantage of the most vulnerable.

Remember that in personal injury cases there is quite often a lot of money involved.  A successful motor vehicle accident claim can provide income replacement benefits, caregiver benefits, medical and rehabilitation benefits, attendant care benefits, and the payment of various other expenses.  In cases of truly catastrophic impairment, this can mean a payout of millions of dollars.[10] After tough negotiation about the cause and consequences of the personal injury, the insurance companies will usually agree to some form of lump-sum payment or structured settlement agreement. A structured settlement is a type of insurance product called an annuity that guarantees the injured person a fixed stream of tax-free payments, usually for life.  One of the key advantages of the structured settlement is, of course, that the injured person is in no danger of outliving his benefits.  What can or should family members do to protect the person under disability and ensure that the guardian of property does not take advantage of the situation?

Here are some options to consider when a member of their family has gone through a catastrophic injury:

 

  1. Obligation of Guardian of Property to Keep Records: It is important to remind the guardian of property that he or she is a fiduciary[11] who has both a common law and statutory duty to keep accounts of all transactions involving the disabled person’s property.[12]  If the proposed guardian of property is aware of his or her obligations, and is aware that concerned family members know of that duty, this may make him or her think twice before taking advantage of the situation.   The regulations are quite comprehensive, but in summary, a guardian of property must keep vouchers showing a list of assets at the beginning of the process, a list of what cash and assets were required and what was disposed of, and any investments made.  If the guardian of property is not keeping records or is not prepared to show the records to concerned family members, you may consider this a red flag for concern.

 

  1. Passing  of Accounts.  There are three points where family members should ask that the court make an order that the guardian of      property pass his or her accounts at regular intervals. Making the guardian pass his or her accounts means that the guardian will have to  show all the records of what transpired with the property of the incapable person while the guardian of property was in charge. It will allow those who brought the motion to compel a passing of accounts to verify if the guardian of property has properly managed the incapable person’s money.  If the objections are not answered,  the matter goes to trial. The three points in time where one might ask a      court to order that a guardian of property pass his or her accounts are as follows:

 

  •  Application to appoint guardian of property.  When there is a catastrophic personal injury resulting in the accident victim  becoming incapable, a motion to appoint a guardian of property will take place. At that point, family members can ask for the order to provide that the guardian of property pass his or her accounts at regular intervals;
  •  Motion for Approval of Settlement.  As indicated above, any settlement negotiated on behalf of an incapable person has to be approved by the court. The guardian of property must bring a Rule 7 motion seeking approval of the settlement by a judge. At that point, family members can also ask the court to include a provision in the judgment that the guardian of property pass his or her accounts at regular intervals;
  • Section 42(4) Motion seeking leave to compel an accounting.   As explained above, the guardian of property is a fiduciary whose powers and duties must be exercised and performed diligently, with honesty and integrity and in good faith, for the incapable person’s benefit.[13]  Section 32(6) of the SDA requires the guardian of property, in accordance with the regulations, to keep accounts of all transactions involving the property. Now what happens if there is suspicion of foul play and the guardian of property refuses to disclose the bookkeeping?  Arguably, this is contrary to his or her obligations under the SDA, which provides that the guardian of property must consult with supportive family members and friends of the incapable person.[14]  Failure to share what’s going on should be a red flag of concern and, arguably, gives reasonable cause for a concerned family member or friend to consider bringing an application under subsection 42(4) of the SDA for leave to compel the guardian of property to pass his or her accounts.[15]

 

This short overview of the law should not be taken as legal advice In the event that you or a person you care about is injured and/or potentially incapable, nothing is as useful as retaining a competent personal injury lawyer who will do a thorough analysis of the law and the fact situation to provide proper advice about the prospects of an accident benefits claim, a structured settlement, a guardianship application or, if necessary, a breach of trust claim or application for leave to have the guardian of property pass his accounts.

The authors are Charles B. Wagner and Brendan Donovan.  Brendan is an associate and Charles is a Certified Specialist in Estates and Trusts and partner at Wagner Sidlofsky LLP.  This Toronto office is a boutique litigation law firm whose practice is focused on estate, commercial and tax litigation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



[1] Timbers Estate v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 2011 ONSC 3639 (CanLII).

 

[2]   The process for appointing a guardian of property in Ontario is set out in sections 22-30 of Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 30.

[3] Under the statutory accident benefits scheme created by, inter alia, the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, O. Reg. 34/10, and the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Accidents on or after November 1, 1996, O. Reg. 403/96.

[4] Please see section 6 of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 30, which provides that a “person is incapable of managing property if the person is not able to understand information that is relevant to making a decision in the management of his or her property, or is not able to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a decision or lack of decision.”

[5] Under Rule 1.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, the definition of “disability” includes a person who is mentally incapable within the meaning of section 6 or 45 of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 in respect of an issue in the proceeding, whether the person has a guardian or not.  Section 6 of the Substitute Decision Act is set out above in endnote iv.

[6]   See Rule 7.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, which provides that, for a party under disability, the lawsuit must be commenced by a litigation guardian.  A court appointment for a plaintiff and applicant is not necessary if the mentally incapable person has a guardian with authority to act as a litigation guardian.  No person except the Office of the Childrens Lawyer or the PGT can act as a litigation guardian for the plaintiff or applicant until that person has filed an affidavit which sets out that the person: (a) consents to act as litigation guardian in the proceeding; (b) confirms that he or she has given written authority to a named lawyer to act in the proceeding; (c) provides evidence concerning the nature and extent of the disability; (d) in the case of a minor, states the minor’s birth date; (e) states whether he or she and the person under disability are ordinarily resident in Ontario; (f) sets out his or her relationship, if any, to the person under disability; (g) states that he or she has no interest in the proceeding adverse to that of the person under disability; and (h) acknowledges that he or she has been informed of his or her liability to pay personally any costs awarded against him or her or against the person under disability.

[8]    See subrule 7.08(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194: “No settlement of a claim made by or against a person under disability, whether or not a proceeding has been commenced in respect of the claim, is binding on the person without the approval of a judge.”  As well, please see DeMichino (Guardian of property of) v. Musialkiewicz (June 28, 2012, Juriansz, LaForme and Epstein JJ.A., Ontario Court of Appeal) 217 A.C.W.S. (3d) 709.  In this case the lawyers for he plaintiff (who suffered catastophic injuries) sought a premium for legal services rendered.  The motion judge did not approve of the settlement because the judge felt the premium to be excessive.  On appeal the plaintiff’s lawyer suggested a reduced premium which was approved.  Decision reflects the court’s desire to ensure that the settlement is in the best interests of the incapable person.


And subrule 7.08(2): “Judgment may not be obtained on consent in favour of or against a party under disability without the approval of a judge.”

[9] See subrule 7.08(5):“On a motion or application for the approval of a judge under this rule, the judge may direct that the material referred to in subrule (4) be served on the Children’s Lawyer or on the Public Guardian and Trustee as the litigation guardian of the party under disability and may direct the Children’s Lawyer or the Public Guardian and Trustee, as the case may be, to make an oral or written report stating any objections he or she has to the proposed settlement and making recommendations, with reasons, in connection with the proposed settlement.”

[10]  The legislation and case law surrounding the definition of “catastrophic impairment” is complex. For a recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, see Pastore v. Aviva Canada Inc., 2012 ONCA 642 (CanLII).

[11] A fiduciary is a person with both a legal and ethical duty of trust.  There is both a common law and statutory fiduciary obligation on an attorney for property. The statutory duties are set out in sections 32 and 38 of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 30. As articulated by Professor Waters in his book Waters’ Law of Trusts: “It is a fundamental principle of every developed legal system that one who undertakes a task on behalf of another must act exclusively for the benefit of the other, putting his own interests completely aside. In the common law system this duty may be enforceable by way of an action by the principal upon the contract of agency, but the modes in which the rule can be breached are myriad, many of them in situations other than contract and therefore beyond the control of the law of contract. It was, in part, to meet such situations that Equity fashioned the rule that no one may allow his duty to conflict with his interest.”

[12] Someone who is appointed as an attorney for property has a duty to keep proper records, which includes a duty to obtain and keep receipts. In Ontario, that common law duty has been codified under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 30, see sections 32(6) Duties of guardian, Accounts; 33(1) Liability of guardian and 42; Passing of Accounts, as well as under Accounts and Records of Attorneys and Guardians, O. Reg. 100/96.

[14] See subsection 32(5) of the SDA, the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 30 .

[15] Under subsection 42(4) of the SDA the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 30 .  The legislation provides that the following persons may apply to have the guardian of property pass his or her accounts: (1.) the grantor’s or incapable person’s guardian of the person or attorney for personal care; (2.) a dependant of the grantor or incapable person (in our case, Jeffrey Timbers’ daughter, if she was a dependant, could have applied to court to have her uncle pass his accounts);  (3.) the PGT (if there are suspicions and you report them to the PGT, the PGT may commence an application for an accounting); (4.) the Children’s Lawyer; (5.) a judgment creditor of the grantor or incapable person.; or (6.) any other person, with leave of the court.  Normally, “any other person with leave of the court” is the category most concerned family members will fall under.  But “any other person” must first seek leave of the court in order to apply to have the guardian of property pass his or her accounts.

Trustees have a duty to act with loyalty, prudence and good faith.(1)  Executors who breach their fiduciary duty risk being removed.  So let’s review how that might take place.

Under the Trustee Act of Ontario, it is possible for any person with an interest in the estate(2) to apply for an order removing a trustee.(3)  The courts are reluctant to use this power, however, and will only remove a trustee if it is in the best interests of the beneficiaries.(4)

A recent and striking example of this rule is the Ontario case of Venables v. Gordon Estate.(5)  In his will, Percival Hector Gordon established a generous trust for his daughter Helen. The income was to be paid to her for her life, with the remainder distributed equally to her two sons, Peter Gordon and Michael Venables.  Helen was appointed as trustee, with Peter named as an alternative should his mother become unable to act.  At the time of the litigation, the value of the trust was about $570,000.00 and Helen had reached the ripe old age of 100. Not surprisingly, she was having difficulty in carrying out some of her duties as executor.

In mid-September, 2006, Peter notified Michael that he would be taking over as trustee according to their grandfather’s will. This led to almost immediate problem. Peter started taking management fees out of the income account,(6) making unauthorized investments,(7) and at one point even stopped making payments to his mother.(8)  Michael, who was Helen’s attorney under a power of attorney, applied to have Peter removed as executor.

Was Peter’s behaviour bad enough for the court to order him removed as the executor of his grandfather’s estate?  In a word, yes. This case was different from some previous cases that held that a trustee can only be removed where it is clearly necessary,(9) where there is no other course to follow,(10) or where non-removal would prevent the proper execution of the trust.(11) The court in Venables found that Peter had crossed the redline. The court appointed a corporate trustee to take his place.

The Venables case is interesting to lawyers for several reasons.  First, it re-emphasizes the fact that, when deciding whether or not to remove a trustee, the courts tend to focus on the best interests of the beneficiaries and the future administration of the estate.(12)  Removing a trustee is primarily about protecting the beneficiaries and not about punishing the trustee for past misdeeds.  Second, Venables suggests that the courts might be more willing to remove a trustee where the conflict erupts between the trustee and someone who is “more than a mere beneficiary.”(13)  In Venables, Michael was the litigation guardian and attorney for property of his mother, who was the original trustee. Michael and Peter had also signed a settlement agreement in 2009 pursuant to which Peter agreed to give monthly bank statements to Michael and seek his approval for new investments. The court found: “Even if Michael was considered a mere beneficiary, Peter’s removal would be justified; but Michael stands in an enhanced position.”(14)  A question that intrigued me was why Michael did not seek his own appointment.  Why did Michael want a corporate trustee instead?  In our experience, when families argue over who should be executors, the court’s default position is to appoint a neutral estate trustee. I speculate that perhaps – being aware of that, Michael’s counsel may have advised him to take the high road and opt for a corporate trustee.

So what’s the bottom line?  Every situation is fact specific and even if you think your situation resembles a case you read about, it would be a mistake to jump to a legal conclusion.  However, as a general rule, when considering whether to remove an executor, judges tend to focus on the future administration of the trust, the protection of the beneficiaries and the status of the applicant seeking the executor’s removal. This short review of the law should not be taken as legal advice. Based on my experience in dealing with these cases, they often turn on the specific facts. If you have a legal question relating to something similar, you would be well advised to seek out competent legal counsel to determine your best course of action.

The authors are Charles B. Wagner and Brendan Donovan.  Charles is a partner and Brendan is an associate at Wagner Sidlofsky LLP. This Toronto office is a boutique litigation law firm whose practice is focused on estate, commercial and tax litigation.

 


Footnotes

(1)       In addition, trustees have a duty to avoid conflicts of interest, to account, to act gratuitously, etc. The various duties of trustees are outlined in Donovan Waters, Waters’ Law of Trusts in Canada, 3d Ed. (Thomson Canada Limited, 2005) at Chapter 18. See, e.g., Banton v. Banton, [1998] O.J. No. 3528, 164 D.L.R. (4th) 176 (Ont. Gen. Div.).  Joint trustees also have a duty to act jointly; that is, unanimously.  See A. Oosterhoff, Oosterhoff on Trusts: Text, Commentary and Materials, 7th Ed. (Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd., 2009) at p. 1050-1051.

(2)       Trustee Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.23, s. 37(3).

(3)       Trustee Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.23, s. 37(1).  The court also has an inherent jurisdiction to remove a trustee.

(4)       The classic statement of the rule may be found in Lord Blackburn’s speech in Letterstedt v. Broers (1884), 9 App. Cas. 371 (P.C.).

(5)       Venables (Litigation Guardian of) v. Gordon Estate (2012), 76 E.T.R. (3d) (Ont. S.C.J.).

(6)       Supra, at paras. 12 and 16. By taking management fees out of income, a person entitled to the remainder is essentially preserving his own inheritance at the expense of the life tenant.

(7)       Supra, at para. 17. He executed trades totaling $56,000.00 in one month.

(8)       Supra, at para. 14.

(9)       Re Weil, [1961] O.R. 888 at 889 (C.A.).

(10)    Crawford v. Jardine, [1997] O.J. No. 5041 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.), citing Re Tempest (1866), L.R. 1 Ch. 485.

(11)    Supra, Crawford.

(12)    See St. Joseph’s Health Centre v. Dzwiekowski (2007), 162 A.C.W.S. (3d) 348 (Ont. S.C.J.).

(13)    Venables, supra at para. 32.

(14)    Venables, supra, at para. 36.

 Justice Strathy of the Superior Court of Justice ordered that Mr. Zimmerman repay nearly $500,000 in compensation he took as an attorney for property (FN1).  The judge also ordered that he personally pay the legal costs of the other side amounting to $284,362.19 (FN2).    What happened?

 Let me first introduce you to Robert and Signe McMichael.  During their lives they collected Canadian art from artists like Tom Thomson and the Group of Seven members. In 1964 they donated their art collection to the province of Ontario and by 1981 the Collection had grown to include more than 2,000 artworks. This Collection is truly a Canadian national treasure. (FN3).

In 2001 Robert and Signe McMichael made mirror wills (FN4).  Both husband and wife left everything to each other.  Signe’s Will, (like her husband’s) said that if her spouse predeceased her, then when she died, Signe’s assets would be donated to the Collection.   Mr. McMichael died in 2003 and his assets were inherited by his wife. 

 After her husband’s death, Mrs. McMichael signed a power of attorney appointing Mr. Zimmerman as her sole attorney for property.   In early 2004 Mr. Zimmerman’s lawyers prepared a trust document appointing Mr. Zimmerman as the trustee.  Mr. Zimmerman then transferred virtually all of Mrs. McMichael’s assets including the art collection into the trust so that there was virtually nothing left in her estate. 

 Under this new trust, Mr. Zimmerman had sole and unfettered discretion to decide which art related organization would receive Signe’s assets years after her death.  Effectively, the new trust rendered the Will meaningless. Instead of inheriting everything immediately after Signe’s death, the Collection would get nothing.  If the new trust went unchallenged it was totally up to Mr. Zimmerman to decide whether the Collection would receive any of Signe’s assets.

 When Mrs. McMichael died in 2007 her niece and husband, the executors under the Will, commenced a legal proceeding.  They asked the court to declare that the Power of Attorney and the Trust were void on the ground that Signe lacked capacity.   They also wanted Mr. Zimmerman to pass his accounts in a separate proceeding. 

 The only issue before Justice Strathy was Mr. Zimmerman’s passing of accounts.  To pass his accounts Mr. Zimmerman had to show what assets of Signe’s he received and how the money under his control was spent.  As an attorney for property it was Mr. Zimmerman’s statutory and common law duty to keep proper accounting records and proof/vouchers to demonstrate that the money spent was for the benefit of Mrs. McMichael.  This duty is imposed on trustees because it is a basic fundamental principle of trust law that Mr. Zimmerman, as a trustee, was not entitled to use the trust property for his own personal benefit.  If Mr. Zimmerman did use Signe’s assets for his own personal benefit or if he could not account or explain to the court how he spent the money then he would be liable to return it.

 When Mr. Zimmerman tried to pass his accounts the fireworks started.

 Whatever accounting that was provided was incomplete.  Mr. Zimmerman could not or would not provide proper explanations about how he spent the money.  The court found that Mr. Zimmerman breached his fiduciary duties and failed to exercise his powers and duties diligently, with honesty and integrity and in good faith, for the incapable person’s benefit.  Mr. Zimmerman did not comply with his obligation to keep proper accounts and was not in a position to prove that he administered the trust prudently and honestly. He did not have the accounts ready and was not able to give full information when required. 

 Mr. Zimmerman infuriated the court because he failed to respond to appropriate objections to his accounts.   The judge drew an adverse inference that by failing to respond properly to the questions raised by the Collection and the estate trustees Mr. Zimmerman was guilty of taking the money for himself and would be required to reimburse the estate for those disbursements and expenses (FN5).

 This short review of the case law should not be taken as legal advice. Based on my experience in dealing with these cases, they often turn on the specific facts. If you have a legal question relating to something similar, you are best advised to seek out competent legal counsel to determine your best course of action.

 Charles B. Wagner is a partner at Wagner Sidlofsky LLP. This Toronto office is a boutique litigation law firm whose practice is focused on estate, commercial and tax litigation.

 _______________________________________________________________________________________

FN1.  Please see Zimmerman v. McMichael Estate  2010 CarswellOnt 3481, 2010 ONSC 2947, 57 E.T.R. (3d) 101, 103 O.R. (3d) 25 and in particular paragraphs  29 and 88 and 90 for the proposition that a fiduciary may not profit from his role, paragraph 30 for the fiduciary’s duty to account, and paragraphs 35,43 45, 49 and 89. 

 

FN2.  Please see the second Zimmerman decision.  The first was decided on May 20, 2010 and cited in FN1.  The second was decided on October 4, 2010  and can be found as Zimmerman v. Fenwick 2010 CarswellOnt 8372, 2010 ONSC 5452.

FN3.  Robert and Signe McMichael  founded  the Collection,. Some of the history of the Collection, is described in the judgment of the Court of Appeal in McMichael v. Ontario (1997), 36 O.R. (3d) 163, [1997] O.J. No. 4661 (Ont. C.A.), leave to appeal refused, (S.C.C.)..  Their website can be found at http://www.mcmichael.com/

FN4.  It is important not to confuse the terms “Mirror Wills” and Mutual Wills.   Mirror Wills are identical to one another.  Mutual Wills creates an agreement which equity enforces that the wills will not be changed.   I refer you to the explanation of Histrop, Estate Planning Precedents which excerpts from Canadian Forms of Wills, 4th ed. BY Terence Sheard and the late Rodney Hall,  “  Although a will is by its nature revocable, a testator may, by agreement, create equities in his assets that will be enforceable against those who derive title from him (Dufour v. Pereira (1769), 1 Dick. 419; Stone v. Hoskins, [1905] P. 194; 39 Hals., 3rd ed., p. 851; see also Re Hagger, [1930] 2 Ch. 190). The commonest manner in which such equities are created is through the making of joint or mutual wills  but the mere fact that two wills are made in identical terms does not of necessity imply any agreement to constitute equitable interests so as to, in effect, make the will of the survivor irrevocable” .

FN5.  The finding of an adverse interest is very important with respect to accounting.  Under the common law section 32(6) and 42 of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 30  and under the regulations Accounts and Records of Attorneys and Guardians, O. Reg. 100/96 the attorney for property has a absolute strict duty to in accordance with the regulations, keep accounts of all transactions involving the property of the grantor of the Power of attorney.  Justice Strathy, in his judgment, addresses what happens when the attorney fails to keep proper records: 

Duty to Account:  trustee has an obligation to keep proper accounts. A trustee must keep a complete record of his/her activities and be in a position at all times to prove that he/she administered the trust prudently and honestly. He/she must have the accounts ready and give full information whenever required. (see para 30)

Adverse Inference:  An attorney who fails to retain receipts supporting substantial cash withdrawals or expenses charged against the incapable person’s property has not adequately carried out his/her duties and will be held personally liable for the unsubstantiated withdrawals (para 35)  It is a basic principle of trust law that a trustee is not entitled to use the trust property for his or her own personal benefit.  Trustee has onus to prove disbursements were legitimate.   If a trustee cannot account for or explain disbursements or expenses charged against a trust he/she is personally liable to the trust for those disbursements (paragraphs 43 45, 49 and 89).

Very often a parent appoints the favourite child to manage the parent’s property (“power of attorney”) or be the executor under the parent’s will.   Perhaps the child is honest but has no idea what obligations are involved with being an attorney for property or as an executor and fails to keep proper records.  Perhaps that child is very dishonest and the lack of records is simply his way to hide the improper use of his parent’s money. So what typically happens? 

The power of attorney or executor may put his money together with his parent’s money (intermingling).  Caregivers may be paid cash and there are no receipts.  Expenses (both appropriate and inappropriate) may be incurred and no records are kept.  All of the above scenarios, which may be very innocent, are problematic. 

There is both a common law and legislative duty to keep accounts of all transactions involving the parent’s property by the attorney for property (FN1) and the executor (FN2) if called upon by those with a financial interest to pass those accounts.  What this means is that The Executor/Attorney for Property prepares his records in a form acceptable to the court and a judge approves of the accounts.

Based on my experience in this area it seems as if the strict obligation to keep proper records is often “honoured in the breach”.  People sometimes just do not keep proper records.  So in the scenario I raised above let’s assume this favourite son is unfamiliar with the fiduciary duty (F3) to keep proper records and to show his records, if asked, to people with a financial interest in his mother’s affairs. So what happens if – like in many cases – the son has no records and cannot show where he spent mom’s money? The court’s often will draw on adverse inference and assume the son has used the money for his own purposes and not for his mother’s benefit.

In Zimmerman v. McMichael Estate (FN4) Justice Strathy provides a wonderful summary of the obligations to account and the risks for not doing so.  It is worthwhile for anyone interested in this area of law to review this case.  In part, His Honour explains,

  1. A trustee (FN4) must keep a complete record of his/her activities and be in a position at all times to prove that he/she administered the trust prudently and honestly. He/she must have the accounts ready and give full information.
  2. A trustee must make a proper accounting as a condition precedent to being awarded compensation.
  3. An adverse inference (FN5) may be drawn if the trustee fails to retain receipts supporting substantial cash withdrawals or expenses charged against the incapable person’s property and that attorney will be held personally liable for the unsubstantiated withdrawals. (FN 6).

 

The bottom line is that those people who take on the responsibility of being a power of attorney and or an executor should familiarize themselves with the obligations flowing from that position.  Some good sites to look at to start your research are listed below in the footnotes.  As well, I suggest you see the following:

  1. Executorship:  A Guide for Those Called Upon to Act as an Estate Trustee published by the Certified General Accounts of Ontario http://www.cga-ontario.org/assets/file/publication_executorship.pdf  
  2. Objections to Accounts  http://www.estatelawcanada.ca/category/passing-of-accounts-and-executors-fees/
  3. Elder Abuse in Ontario http://www.estatelawcanada.ca/category/court-appointed-guardians-of-property-and-of-person/
  4. Put Your Own Interests Aside – Poa http://www.cbwagnerlaw.com/articles/aside-interests.php

 

 _________________________________________________________________________________________

 FN1 Someone who is appointed as an attorney for property has a duty to keep proper records which includes a duty to obtain and keep receipts.  In Ontario that common law duty has been codified under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 30 ( see sections 32(6)   Duties of guardian, Accounts;  33(1) Liability of guardian and  42; Passing of Accounts) as well as Accounts and Records of Attorneys and Guardians, O. Reg. 100/96

 FN2.  The RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE – R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 outlines how the accounts should be prepared.  Please see Rules 74.15 and 74.16.  Also see section 39 of the Estates Act and section 23(1) of the Trustee Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.23.  As well the LSUC has a very useful site indicating steps to be taken to pass accounts at http://rc.lsuc.on.ca/jsp/ht/passingAccounts.jsp#s9

 FN3.  A fiduciary duty describes a special obligation of a person placed in a position of responsibility or trust in which that person manages the assets or property of another person.  For example, a power of attorney and executor are both at common law and by statute viewed as fiduciaries.  So a person who is appointed as power of attorney has an obligation to act honestly, in good faith and strictly in the best interests of the person who granted that power of attorney.  The same is true for an executor who must act strictly in the best interests of the estate.  Please see 32(1) of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 30

FN4.  A Trustee includes an executor under a will and these obligations apply equally to a power of attorney.

 FN5  Justice Strathy did not use the words “adverse inference”.  This phrase is my own based on his comments in paragraph 35 of the case.

 FN6  This can be found on line at http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2010/2010onsc2947/2010onsc2947.pdf .   In paragraph 35 of his endorsement Justice Strathy refers to a number of cases to support his proposition including Lanthier v. Dufresne Estate, [2002] O.J. No 3397, [2002] O.T.C. 671 (S.C.J.) at paras. 52-57; Re Ronson, [2000] O.J. No 1294 (S.C.J.) at paras. 15-20.

So if you suspect that the power of attorney has done something wrong what are some of the things you should look for? The first thing you should know is that a power of attorney has both a common law and statutory duty to keep proper records of all transactions involving the property (FN1). The court may order that the accounts of an attorney be passed(FN2). When examining those accounts here are some of the things to look for:
1. Are The Accounts In Proper Court Format?Ontario legislation requires a certain format for the accounts. It provides a structure to ensure all relevant assets of the Grantor are listed and indicates what monies have been received and spent. Sometimes a less informal accounting misses information.

2. Are there Missing Assets?A proper accounting lists assets assets as of the date of the first transaction by the attorney and an ongoing list of assets acquired and disposed of on behalf of the incapable person, including the date of and reason for the acquisition or disposition and from or to whom the asset is acquired or disposed. Often the attorney will claim that the grantor gifted an asset. This is a concern because it is “…It is a fundamental principle of every developed legal system that one who undertakes a task on behalf of another must act exclusively for the benefit of the other, putting his own interests completely aside.(FN3)

3. Are there joint Assets missing from the accounting?One way for two or more people to own an asset is joint tenancy. In the ordinary course when one of those people die the survivor(s) inherit the deceased’s share, However, when a joint account is held by a child together with an elderly parent n the Supreme Court of Canada decisions of Pecore v. Pecore and Madsen Estate v. Saylor, stand for the proposition that there is a legal presumption that all these monies belong to the estate. Accordingly, unlike the normal joint accounts, these monies may not pass to the remaining owner(s)  by right of survivorship.

4. Proof of Legitimate expenses -  Are there Vouchers?   An attorney for property has an absolute duty to keep receipts. Failure to keep receipts may lead to the court drawing an adverse inference that the attorney breached his fiduciary duty.(FN4)

5. How much  Compensation was claimed?An attorney is entitled to compensation. While there is a tarrif that is only a guide. How much may depend on the language of the Power of Attorney and the nature of the assets and work done.

These are just some of examples of what should be looked at when examining an Attorney’s accounts. If a person with a financial interest has concerns they are well advised to hire a lawyer with expertise in the area to examine the accounts in detail.

FN1. See sections 32(6), and Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 30  Accounts and Records of Attoneys and Guardians, O. Reg. 100/96

FN2. See section 42 of Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 30 to describe who may apply to have the accounts passed. The legislation provides that the attorney, the grantor, the attorney for personal care, a dependant of the grantor, The Public Guardian and zTrustee, the Childres’s Lawyer, a judgment creditor or any other person with leave of the court.
FN3. See Jacobs v. Hershorn at http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2006/2006canlii10522/2006canlii10522.html

FN4. Please see paragraphs 52 – 60 Fareed v. Wood, 2005 CanLII 22134 (ON S.C.) at http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=%22adverse+inference%22+accounting+%22power+of+attorney%22&language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/on/onsc/doc/2005/2005canlii22134/2005canlii22134.html

In this case the court drew an adverse inference because t the attorney esd unable to properly account for the transactions occurring while he was attorney. In part, this results from his failure to maintain proper records. As a result of transactions occurring in her lifetime, the testamentary gifts intended by Ms. McLeod, and clearly stated in her Will, are defeated. In Sopinka, Lederman and Bryant, “The Law of Evidence” the author states, “In civil cases, an unfavourable inference can be drawn when, in the absence of an explanation a party litigant does not testify, or fails to provide affidavit evidence on the application, or fails to call a witness who would have knowledge of the facts and would be assumed to be willing to assist the party. ….. Such failure amounts to an implied admission that the evidence of the absent witness would be contrary to the party’s case, or at least would not support it.”

Executors often want to buy assets belonging to an estate. Beneficiaries often suspect the executors of wrong doing. So I often am asked whether it’s legal for an executor to buy an asset from the estate. The short answer is maybe, possibly, but not usually.

To demonstrate the problem let’s imagine that Ben just died. He and his brother Harry owned an apartment building. These brothers loved and trusted one another their whole lives. Ben never married and treated Harry’s wife like his own sister and Harry’s kids like his own children. Ben was appointed as the executor and estate trustee for his late brother’s estate. The beneficiaries of the estate are the deceased’s wife and two children. The only asset of the estate is 50% of the apartment building.

Ben gets two independent appraisals valuing the apartment building at $2 million. He offers the estate $1.5 million dollars for its ½ of the apartment building. Each of the beneficiaries gets independent legal advice approving the sale. So what do you think? Under these circumstances can Ben buy the estate asset eventhough he is the executor and estate trustee? Would you change your opinion if immediately thereafter Ben gets a call and someone offers to buy the apartment building for $4 million?

The general rule of thumb, as articulated by Professor Waters in his book Waters Law of trusts is that “It is a fundamental principle of every developed legal system that one who undertakes a task on behalf of another must act exclusively for the benefit of the other, putting his own interests completely aside. In the common law system this duty may be enforceable by way of an action by the principal upon the contract of agency, but the modes in which the rule can be breached are myriad, many of them in situations other than contract and therefore beyond the control of the law of contract. It was, in part, to meet such situations that Equity fashioned the rule that no one may allow his duty to conflict with his interest”.

Estate Trustees/Executors are considered fiduciaries. The common law is very clear that as fiduciaries have an exclusive duty of loyalty to the beneficiaries. If so, a court will wonder how could Ben negotiate a deal fairly when he represents the buyer (himself) and the seller (the estate)? That is why at common law, the fiduciary is absolutely forbidden from dealing with estate property for his own benefit regardless of how honest or fair the purchase may be. Nonetheless, despite that general rule of thumb, the courts have not always been consistent in how they apply this rule. While there is a consensus that the executor must act in a way that is in the best interests of the estate the courts differ on how strictly to apply the rule.

Some court decisions suggest that Ben could not buy the estate’s interest in the apartment building because even if he was being honest and even if he meant well he cannot possibly give the exclusive loyalty to the beneficiaries when he himself stands to make a profit. Those cases would suggest any such purchase is a breach of fiduciary duty and the deal can later be set aside even if the purchase was reasonable and the beneficiaries were not harmed. For a review of those cases I refer you to CED Trusts VI.4.(c).(ii) and WatersTrusts 18.II.

Other courts have considered the Fiduciary’s duty of loyalty as being intended to prevent actual harm to the beneficiaries. If there is no harm then these cases suggest there may be some flexibility that would permit the purchase. If Ben could show that the sale caused no harm to the beneficiaries and that his actions were reasonable his purchase may be allowed. For example, Ben might argue that he paid over market value because the apartment was worth more to him because he already owned ½ . Ben might say that the beneficiaries would not have gotten a price as high from anyone else. However, a disgruntled beneficiary might suggest that Ben did not disclose that he had an offer for $4 million dollars for the apartment.

While at common law, the fiduciary is absolutely forbidden from dealing with estate property for his own benefit regardless of his honesty and fairness of the purchase, there are infrequent circumstances that courts have allowed fiduciaries to buy trust property. Examples include Re Nathanson (1971), 18 D.L.R. (3de) 495 (N.S.T.D.) and Mochan v. Omega Oil & Gas Ltd, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 348 (S.C.C.). In these cases the courts approved of sales to a fiduciary. In one instance the trustee showed he unsuccessfully tried to find a buyer and the sale was in the best interests of the estate. In the other it was clear the price was fair and those to whom the fiduciary duty was owed consented to the sale with full knowledge.

Fiduciaries who wish to purchase trust property are well advised to make 100% full disclosure to beneficiaries and obtain their consent to the sale of trust property to the trustee. As well, it would be prudent to for all the beneficiaries to obtain independent legal advice. Furthermore, the purchase price should be somewhat more then fair market value. With all these arrows in his/her quiver the trustee might be well advised to seek preapproval of the sale from the court by bringing an application for the opinion, advice and direction of the court under Rule 14.05(3)(d), and under section 60 of the Trustee Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.23. It may happen that a judge will decline to hear the application because they might believe that preapproval of a sale is not the advice or opinion contemplated by the legislation. A judge might point out that if this offer to purchase came from a arms length third party no application for directions would have been made. One senior counsel suggested to me that there are other legal paths which might be a better option. But that – is for another time and another blog. The bottom line is that anyone faced with this issue, whether he/she be a trustee or a beneficiary, should not treat this blog as legal advice and is best advised to seek out a competent experienced lawyer to guide them.

There may be as many as 150,000 seniors being victimized in Ontario.(FN1) The elder abuse can take many forms. One common form of elderly abuse is financial. The purpose behind this blog is to provide some information to people on the first steps they might consider when discovering the problem. Let’s first talk about signs of financial elder abuse.

According to the Toronto Police Service Website(FN2) these are some signs to watch out for:

  1. Has the Power of Attorney been changed?
  2. Is the elderly person suddenly short of money to pay for living expenses?
  3. Has the elderly person been brought to sign legal documents they say they don’t understand?

Another red flag of financial abuse of the elderly occurs when large gifts or transfers of money take place. It is normal for children to become joint account holders in order to help parents pay their bill. However, it is suspicious for large chunks of cash to be transferred out of the joint accounts as gifts or expenses unrelated to the real owner of the account. Often the powers of attorney say that their elderly parent gave them this money as a gift. That might be true – but then again one must ask if there was there pressure placed on an elderly vulnerable person to make that gift? The common law(FN3) and Ontario’s Substitute Decisions Act(FN4) makes it very clear that a Power of Attorney is a fiduciary. What that means is that the power of attorney has undertaken to do things on behalf of a potentially vulnerable person and must act exclusively for the benefit of that person putting his interests totally aside. Taking money from an elderly person who is relying on that power of attorney may go against that Power of Attorney’s duty to act diligently, with honesty and integrity, and in good faith for the donor’s benefit. (FN5)

Options if you suspect Elder Abuse In Financial Matters

  • Call the Police. The Toronto Police Services Unit has a web site(FN6) which describes their efforts. Their contact numbers for a non emergency is 416 808 7040. For an emergency it is 411. The problem is that while the provincial government recognizes that the financial abuse of the elderly is horribly wrong, it is not always viewed as a crime(FN7). Furthermore, the police will sometimes view accusations against a power of attorney as a family dispute not warranting police charges.
  • Call the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (FN8). In the context of my practice I have dealt with the Public Guardian and Trustee a lot. They are altruistic and genuinely interested in helping the elderly. The problem is that they are under resourced and view themselves as a last resort. If they are convinced that it is a very serious financial abuse of an elderly person they will investigate a report that a mentally incapable person has been victimized and apply to court to become the abused elderly persons Temporary Guardian of Property. To report this type of serious abuse you can call the OPGT at 416 327 6348.
  • Educate yourself on Elder Abuse  issues and get Legal Help. An excellent place to start is with the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly (ACE) a community based legal clinic for low income senior citizens. They have an excellent website which will be helpful (http://www.acelaw.ca/) and the lawyers at will talk to people on the phone and if more than a phone call is necessary they may make an appointment. Their phone number is 416-598-2656.
  • Hire a Lawyer and seek an accounting. Powers of Attorney have to keep records and receipts of all money they received on behalf of the person under their care(FN9). They also have keep records of the money spent. If you believe an elderly person is being financially abused write down all the facts you are relying upon to support that belief. The lawyer you hire will want to know:
  1. Who is the power of attorney for property?
  2. Who has control over the elderly person?
  3. What is your relationship to that elderly person?

This last point is very important because under the Substitute Decisions Act, the Power of Attorney must keep accounts of all transactions involving property. The courts take this duty very seriously. The court may, on application order that the attorney have to pass his accounts.

But who may apply to the court?  The elderly person in question, A dependant of the elderly person, The Public Guardian and Trustee,  The Children’s Lawyer, A judgment creditor of the elderly person and Any other person who seeks and obtains permission of the court to apply.

If a court has found that the power of attorney abused their position the court can remove him/her, appoint a new guardian of person. If that Power of Attorney has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the elderly person then the court may order restitution. Now it may be impossible to recover the asset taken in its original form and the court may provide a tracing order

If you need a lawyer it is always a good idea to ensure that the person you hire has expertise in the area. If you do not know someone like that you can contact the Lawyer Referral Service provided by the Law Society of Upper Canada at http://www.lsuc.on.ca/public/a/faqs—lawyer-referral-service/

It would be a mistake to treat this blog as substantive legal advice. For those considering commencing an application to compell an accounting, there is no substitute for hiring a competent lawyer whose own research, analysis and judgment should be canvassed.

Here are some resources which may be of assistance:

  1. Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General website. See the section on Elder abuse: http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/justice-ont/criminal_law.asp#elder
  2. Advocacy Centre for the Elderly: http://www.acelaw.ca/services.php
  3. Public Health Agency of Canada website. This discusses the financial abuse of the elderly and possible ways to stop it. http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/publications/agefinancialab-eng.php
  4. Ontario’s Seniors’ Secretariat http://www.culture.gov.on.ca/seniors/english/programs/elderabuse/

FN1  http://www.onpea.org/english/contactus/stategytocombatelderabuse.html

FN2  http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/communitymobilization/elderabuse.php

FN3  http://www.cbwagnerlaw.com/pdf/put_your_own_interests_aside.pdf

FN4  http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_92s30_e.htm

FN5 See section 32(1) of the Substitute Decisions Act which provides “A guardian of property is a fiduciary whose powers and duties shall be exercised and performed diligently, with honesty and integrity and in good faith, for the incapable person’s benefit.”

FN6  http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/communitymobilization/elderabuse.php

FN7   http://www.onpea.org/english/contactus/stategytocombatelderabuse.html Note that certain financial abuse can be a crime.  For example, theft, fraud, forgery and extortion are criminal offences.

FN8  See a very good article “Elder Abuse:  The Hidden Crime”  by ACE which is the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly and Community Legal Education Ontario (CLEO) at http://www.cleo.on.ca/english/pub/onpub/PDF/seniors/elderab.pdf

FN9  The duty to account is set out in the Substitute Decisions Act.  There are regulations which set out how these accounts must be maintained.  Please see ONTARIO REGULATION 100/96    ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS OF ATTORNEYS AND GUARDIANS http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_960100_e.htm