Pelletier v. Pelletier

The case of Pelletier v. Pelletier, 2025 BCSC 43, is about allegations of financial abuse by a granddaughter of her grandfather’s wealth at a time when he was vulnerable and had been diagnosed by both a physician and a geriatric psychiatrist with dementia. The physiatrist wrote a letter in November 2018 opining that he was “no longer capable of making his legal and financial decision.” One of the interesting features of this case is that when this case went to trial about 5 and a half years after the diagnosis of dementia, and the grandfather gave evidence, the trial judge, Madam Justice Whately, found that he “displayed no outward signs of cognitive decline, nor any of the behaviours or symptoms associated with dementia or other mental disorders that featured so prominently in the evidence.”  What happened?

Dora and Claude had three children, two of whom had died. They were close to their granddaughter Brittany Adcock, who was married to Darryl Adcock.

Dora and Claude owned a 48-acre farm as well as a residential property at Graham Road near the farm. By 2018 there was tension between them over whether to continue to farm. Claude wanted to continue. Dora didn’t. They had both retired from their main employments. She was born in 1944 and he in 1938. She wanted to move into the Graham Road property, closer to Brittany and her family. He was buying new equipment for the farm, including a tractor for $45,000, a Power Harrow for $13,000 and an SUV for $40,000, and Dora didn’t think they could afford it.

In 2018, they sold the Graham Road property to Brittany and Darryl for less than fair market value. No claim was made in respect of this sale, nor was there any suggestion that Brittany and Darryl did anything improper in buying the property for the price they paid.

Claude’s mental functioning deteriorated. According to Justice Whately:

[11]         It is true that Claude suffered from serious health issues requiring medication. This medication led to catastrophic effects: his behaviour and personality changed, and I accept that he became cantankerous, less rational, and generally difficult to be around. Claude suffered from symptoms that mimic dementia, such as temporary cognitive and functional impairments, and he also likely suffered from increased impulsivity and paranoia.

In diagnosing Claude with dementia, his doctors and nurses relied in part on collateral reports from his granddaughter Brittany and Dora, which were inaccurate. Justice Whately wrote:

[175]     Brittany made various statements to Claude’s medical professionals later shown to be untrue, exaggerated, or misleading. Some of these include:

a)    As of November 2018, Brittany variously told different health care providers that Claude had spent $300,000, $350,000, or $400,000–$500,000 on farm equipment. She informed one doctor that she had “tallied” the spending, which totalled at least $300,000.

b)    As of November 2018, Claude had gone through all his and Dora’s savings and was starting to dip into their retirement fund. In fact, in November 2018, Dora and Claude were in a financially positive position.

c)     Claude had continued an affair for 37 years with a woman in Ontario.

d)    Claude was making paranoid and obsessive demands about accounting of his money and demanded $30,000 from the family to hire a lawyer to revoke the POA.

Claude had previously made an enduring power of attorney in 2011, appointing Dora as his attorney and Brittany as his alternate. After the diagnosis of dementia, Dora and Brittany effectively took over his affairs, and he lost access to his bank account. He did sell farm equipment and livestock, which he testified totaled over $240,000, and which he gave to Dora.

Dora reactivated a line of credit, which she used for the construction of a house for herself on the Graham Road property. She used the power of attorney to sell the farm in July, 2020, for $999,999. Out of those proceeds, she paid $335,000 owing on the line of credit and transferred $401,611 from her joint account with Claude to a joint account Claude held with Brittany. The same amount was then transferred into Brittany and Darryl’s joint account. Brittany and Dora testified that the funds represented a $200,000 payment to compensate Brittany and Darryl for building a guest suite on their property for Claude’s use and $200,000 was a gift from Claude and Dora for the benefit of the great-grandchildren’s education. Further funds were later transferred from Claude to Brittany and Darryl for further work on the guest suite.

Claude lived in the guest suite for approximately 20 months from April 2020 until October 14, 2021.

In October, 2021, after a dispute in which Claude demanded an accounting of his finances, he was apprehended under the Mental Health Act. While hospitalized, his medication was changed, and following further tests, another psychiatrist, “Dr. Schovanek found that Claude was capable of managing his basic finances, balancing a check book, and making simple meals safely. Dr. Schovanek concluded that “Claude is believed to be capable of re-designating a power of attorney.” Claude was released, and moved in with his son.

Claude signed a revocation of his power of attorney, which he mailed on December 20, 2021 to Brittany, and delivered to Dora on December 23, 2021.

Between October and December 2021, Dora negotiated a separation agreement with Brittany purporting to negotiate on Claude’s behalf as his alternate attorney, on the basis that Dora no longer had authority to act by virtue of their separation. The agreement was signed on December 29, 2021, and contained a provision recognizing a gift of $200,000 to Brittany and Darryl for the guest suite, and another $200,000 to them for their children’s education. Claude did not participate in the negotiations, and Brittany signed on his behalf.

Dora brought a family law claim against her Claude. They had been married for 60 years.  Claude brought a counterclaim in the family law proceeding against their granddaughter, Brittany and her husband Darryl.

The parties agreed that the separation date was November 3, 2021.

In the proceeding, Claude tendered a report by Dr. Passmore, who opined on his capacity to instruct counsel and did a retrospectively to December 2021. As set out in the reasons for judgment:

[90]         Dr. Passmore opined that, as of the date of his examination of him, Claude was capable of managing his financial affairs, instructing legal counsel, making a will, making a POA, and making a representation agreement.

[91]         Dr. Passmore also opined that Claude’s cognitive impairment and below normal MoCa (Montreal Cognitive Assessment) scores which led, in part, to his diagnosis of dementia, were primarily due to the side effects of medication.

Claude’s claims included breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, and knowing receipt of funds in breach of trust. He also sought to set aside the separation agreement.

Justice Whately found that both Dora and Brittany had fiduciary duties to Claude, and that they breached those duties. In addition to having fiduciary duties by virtue of holding a power of attorney, Brittany was also in an ad hoc fiduciary before she stepped into the role of an attorney following Dora’s separation from Claude.

Justice Whately’s decision includes a useful summary of ad hoc fiduciary relationships:

[200]     An ad hoc fiduciary relationship is one that arises out of the specific circumstances and dynamics of the particular relationship: Sledin Estate v. Rusin, 2011 BCSC 1207 at para. 65.

[201]     In Frame v. Smith, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 99, Justice Wilson (in dissent), identified three characteristics that are common to most relationships in which fiduciary obligations have been imposed:

1.     The fiduciary has scope for the exercise of some discretion or power;

2.     The fiduciary can unilaterally exercise that power or discretion so as to affect the beneficiary's legal or practical interests; and

3.     The beneficiary is peculiarly vulnerable to or at the mercy of the fiduciary holding the discretion or power

(the “Frame Factors”).

[202]     The Frame Factors are still widely cited in the case law as “indicia” of an ad hoc fiduciary relationship. However, they are no longer considered to be the complete test for establishment of a fiduciary relationship. In Alberta v. Elder Advocates of Alberta Society, 2011 SCC 24, the Supreme Court of Canada restated the test for the existence of an ad hoc fiduciary relationship as follows:

…[F]or an ad hoc fiduciary duty to arise, the claimant must show, in addition to the vulnerability arising from the relationship as described by Wilson J. in Frame:

an undertaking by the alleged fiduciary to act in the best interests of the alleged beneficiary or beneficiaries;

a defined person or class of persons vulnerable to a fiduciary's control (the beneficiary or beneficiaries); and

a legal or substantial practical interest of the beneficiary or beneficiaries that stands to be adversely affected by the alleged fiduciary's exercise of discretion or control.

[203]     Fiduciary duties can arise without formal appointment as attorney, where an individual takes on the role of managing the financial affairs of a relative. For example, the addition of an adult child to an elderly parent’s bank account for the purpose of assisting with their finances may be sufficient to trigger fiduciary duties, regardless of the parent’s capacity and regardless of whether the child was actually acting as power of attorney for their parent: see e.g. Wedemire v. Wedemire, 2017 ONSC 6891, and Miller v. Miller, 2011 ONSC 7239.

Justice Whately found that both Dora and Brittany breached their fiduciary duties, but Dora did not benefit. Both Brittany and Darryl were unjustly enriched by the depletion of Claude’s funds from the sale of the farm and there was no juristic reason for them to retain a benefit.

The Court also held Brittany and Darryl liable for knowing receipt, the principles of which are summarized in the following passage:

[231]     The elements of a claim for knowing receipt have been set out in Citadel General Assurance Co. v. Lloyds Bank of Canada, [1997] 3 SCR 805 [Citadel], as follows:

a.              receipt of trust property for one’s own benefit (as opposed to as an agent for someone else); and

b.              knowledge or constructive knowledge that the property was transferred in breach of trust or fiduciary duty.

[232]     The threshold of knowledge required to satisfy the second element of the test is low. In Citadel, at para. 49, La Forest J. described the knowledge standard as follows:

…relief will be granted where a stranger to the trust, having received trust property for his or her own benefit and having knowledge of facts which would put a reasonable person on inquiry, actually fails to inquire as to the possible misapplication of trust property.

[233]     Liability for knowing assistance is imposed where a third party (1) assists in a breach of fiduciary duty with (2) actual knowledge that the fiduciary is in breach: Air Canada v. M&L Travel Ltd., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 787.

[234]     Brittany and Darryl knowingly received and personally benefitted from Dora’s breach of fiduciary duty.

[235]     Brittany knew, or ought to have known that the property was transferred in breach of Dora’s fiduciary duty. The evidence establishes that Brittany knew that Dora had a fiduciary obligation to Claude pursuant to the POA. Brittany knew, or ought to have known, that a gift of Claude’s money by Dora to Brittany and Darryl was not in not in Claude’s best interest and that he was either not aware or did not consent to such a gift. Alternatively, even if Claude did consent to some form of gift being made during the period of his incapacity, there are safeguards in place to prevent incapable persons from making gifts that are contrary to their best interests. (see s. 60.2 of the Adult Guardianship Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 6 and s. 20 of the PAA and Regulations). Claude’s best interests, specifically with respect to his financial security, were entirely ignored by his fiduciaries in this case.

The separation agreement was set aside, and Justice Whately ordered Brttany and Darryl to pay damages as follows:

[242]     I order that Brittany and Darryl pay damages to Claude in the amount of $437,535.00. For clarity, I notionally base this amount on:

·                 50% of the 200,000 gift for the education fund ($100,000)

·                 50% of the 200,000 gift for the guest suite ($100,000)

·                 50% of the amount paid against Dora and Claude’s LOC from the Farm Sale proceeds,     which was ostensibly used to pay for the construction of Dora’s House on the Graham Road Property ($167,535)

·                 $70,000 to approximate the various amounts taken or used by Brittany during the period of incapacity, including the “extras” or other unexplained withdrawals from Claude’s funds.