Toronto Estate Lawyer : Hull & Hull Law Firm : Trust Mediation and Succession Planning : Serving Ontario, Ottawa, Mississauga, Hamilton

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By all indications, the abuse of Powers of Attorney to misappropriate assets is on the rise. 

When a grantor gives powers to an attorney to manage the grantor’s property, it allows the attorney to assist the grantor in managing property, and in fact to take over management of property altogether if the grantor does not monitor the situation.  Often the very goal of the grantor is to allow someone else to completely take over management of one’s property due to age, potential incapacity or other reasons, so the grantor has no intention to monitor.

This is often a reasonable choice, and the law holds attorneys to a high standard to protect grantors.  However, the potential for abuse is immense.  Abuse can be willful or simply negligent, but in either case the damage can be devastating and irreversible.  In many cases attorneys who stray from their duties are never made to account, although they have that obligation.  Often they live with the grantor and have little or no oversight.  The legal fees in securing justice are generally high, and the chances of recovering on a judgment can be low.  In the result, legal proceedings might be impractical, however blatant abuse may be in a given case.

The best defence against this problem is awareness, so these varied results from a quick internet search are somewhat encouraging: a Florida law firm website; an excellent Vancouver Sun article; a synopsis of a TV news story; the New York Attorney General’s website; a news report of a Philadelphia trial; and a news release from Prince Edward Island’s provincial government commenting on the problem for World Elder Abuse Day.

This is the tip of a very large iceberg: by all indications lawyers, financial institutions, governments and of course the public will be wrestling with a growing problem for years to come.  

Thanks for reading.

Sean Graham

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As is sometimes the case, an unequal distribution of an estate as between children can arise from a testator who has had a long history of mental illness, chronic alcoholism or other such personal reasons, which may affect the testator's state of mind over a period of many years.

For example, if a child who has been treated unequally grew up in a home where he or she suffered through instances of physical violence, as between the parents and him or herself, this may be the type of fact situation to consider when looking to pursue a claim for breach of fiduciary duty of parental obligations. Similarly, if the unequally treated child lived in a home that was constantly in turmoil, as a result of a chronically alcoholic parent, this situation should also be considered in the context of the fiduciary obligations of a parent.

In our view, one must find several compelling supporting facts to bolster any claim of breach of fiduciary duty or breach of parental obligation. Such facts should also be combined with a clear and identifiable estrangement as between parent and child.

Parental Obligations

In the decision of M. (K.) v. M. (H), the Supreme Court of Canada considered the whole concept of what is meant by the term "parental obligation".

The Court considered this issue in the context of a particularly gruesome and egregious set of facts.

In M.(K.) v. M.(H.), the Supreme Court of Canada examined the parent-child relationship in the circumstances of long-standing allegations of incest and abuse by a parent to a child.

In this case, the child was a victim of incest and abuse which began when she was eight years of age and continued until she was seventeen, when she finally left home. Over the years, after she had left home, she told some individuals, including her husband, of the abuse. The child also sought counselling for depression and marital problems, and saw various medical practitioners who assisted her from time to time.

At the trial, the child retained a psychiatrist who testified that while the child had briefly dealt with the issues of incest in her early adulthood, she did not have an emotional awareness of the situation and was not able to assess her situation rationally.

The child sued her father for damages arising from the incest or, in the alternative, for the infliction of mental distress. Further damages were claimed for breach of parent's fiduciary duty to care for and minister to his child.

Counsel for the child argued that the incest constituted not only the tort of assault and battery but also a breach of fiduciary relationship between parent and child.

In a future blog, we will address the question of the fiduciary duty between a parent and a child, and discuss what the Court held in this important case.

All the best, Suzana and Ian. --------