Conflict of Interest? – part 1

The relationship between Section 3 and BMO has the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Section 3 introduced BMO as part of an order to remove my mother from questionable care. At the time Mrs. Childs was telling, PSW’s and likely everyone

“thank god a human. I hate those people” (Jan 14, 2015) .

“Client stated she wanted to get away from here, she hated them … she wants to get out of here. (PSW report March 20, 2015).”

Appointing a bank as property manager is not mentioned by Mrs. Childs as a condition she requires before she is removed – yet Section 3 will not remove a clause to that effect she inserted into the removal order.

At no time does Section 3 suggest this is Mrs. Childs instruction. Section 3 explains her rational for changing Mrs. Childs competent property management plans was due to

“BMO’s (1) willingness to become involved on an urgent basis, (2) its terms for involvement, (3) its review of the assets that it could (and could not) locate on a cursory review of Mrs. Childs’ information, and (4) my understanding that all parties were welcoming their involvement – were all communicated to me – and by me to counsel – well after Miriam’s first draft order circulated …  Caroline’s email below is an example of the very serious need for a neutral asset manager in this case.

The email referred to stated:

“I also need to know if you want me to provide my receipts for groceries etc daily or weekly for my reimbursement.”

And note Section 3 states “its review of the assets that it could (and could not) locate on a cursory review of Mrs. Childs’ information”.  Section 3 had alleged that $700K had gone missing from Mrs. Childs accounts apparently because the BMO branch had no access to the accounts in another BMO division.

OH! And later we would learn that Section 3 and the BMO manager had a relationship at another bank. The nature of that relationship was never revealed.

Is it a stretch to wonder whether, in return for bringing a large account which bank employees seem to require to keep their positions that the manager of the Private Wealth division of that branch might recommend the Section 3 lawyer to clients wanting to update Wills, plan Estates or Trusts etc.

I am not suggesting this did happen – but it is possible and there is no protection in the system to guard against this type of benefit influencing parties that are fiduciaries.

Conflict of Interest pt 2 coming soon.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Fiduciary Duty, Law Reform, Legal issues, Section 3. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s