If you’re interested in a Self-represented persons memorandum of Argument which opens in you pdf viewer.
Whole application was about 580 pages.
New information to file – and leave to add claims based on that new information.
If you’re interested in a Self-represented persons memorandum of Argument which opens in you pdf viewer.
Whole application was about 580 pages.
New information to file – and leave to add claims based on that new information.
Dear Premiere, Attorney General and Ontario Public Guardian;
This is to inform you that in addition to filing a Motion to admit New Information relating to an incapable persons financial statements, finally disclosed October 6, 2107, I will be seeking leave to modify my statement of claim for SCC Leave 37808 to include recently disclosed information the PGT uses different processes to evaluate management plans submitted by individuals and financial institutions.
This has the appearance the PGT violated my Charter 15 Rights. I would note that this cannot be due to changes in PGT policy as I have earlier inquired about PGT policies to the Attorney General and have a letter suggesting no policies changed.
On June 1 2015 the PGT rejected outright our property management plan because it did not contain a cash flow or income statement. The banks plan, currently under review contain neither as well – but rather than reject the plan and have them refile you are simply going to “request further details from BMO about cash flow”.
Had this process been applied in June of 2015 the PGT should not have rejected the plan outright, but requested further details of our plan. Had that process been followed in 2015 the PGT would have NOT been able to endorse a plan BMO’s had not even filed on June 2, 2015. On that date our plan would the only plan filed and if it had not been rejected outtright would still be in play. Without the PGT’s endorsement of a plan BMO had yet to file, our plan would likely been successful due to the SDA criteria of closeness on the person, and the fact that a cash flow and income statement, accepted by the PGT finance department, was filed before the hearing.
BMO’s plan filed June 10, 2015 did not include a cash flow. The PGT in it’s official position (filed June 16, 2015) neither rejected or endorsed BMO’s plan. It is apparent now that this deceptive approach appears to be a material omission regarding the fact different processes were used to arrive at this position, than used to reject our plan 16 days earlier. The amended plan BMO filed about November 1, 2017 (2 years & 4 months later) does not include a cash flow or income statement and again is not being rejected.
Applying different standards and processes for individuals and financial institutions has the appearance of a Charter 15 violation given the documents in question are approved as part of the administration of Justice.
My intention is to file the Motion to admit New Information to SCC 37808 when I file any responding material to filings by other parties.
I would hope the Premiere and Attorney General will review the PGT’s actions throughout this case and outlined in my Nov.10, email to them and Here.
There is no leadership by the PGT on Elder Abuse, in fact there is the appearance they condone it by favouring banks in their evaluation processes and calling predatory bank fees – expenses.
On November 7, 2017 Premier Wynne promised $6 million to establish a consumer protection program to safeguard seniors from financial abuse and to help prevent physical abuse.
If Premier wants to combat financial & physical abuse she should increase oversight and direction to the Ontario Public Guardian and Trustee.
Any reasonable persons would consider – an incapable person paying MORE for a service that will return – Financial Abuse. Especially it the financial instution is an appointed guardian, has a fudiciary duty to the person, but the payments for the service only benifit the financial institution.
There are protections against this. SDA 40(3) states:
The guardianor attorney may take an amount of compensation greater than the prescribedfee scale allows,(a) .. if consent in writing is given by the Public Guardian and Trustee and by the incapable person’s guardian of the person
I had written the PGT asking if SDA 40(3) was going to be followed. The PGT’s response was
“Ontario courts have held that investment fees can properly be charged to an estate as an expense, rather than as part of compensation. Accordingly, s. 40(3) of the SDA does not apply and the consent of the PGT and personal care guardians is not required.”
The PGT’s position that SDA 40(3) does not apply as the fee is an expense removes statutory protection for an incapable person for fees in excess of SDA 40(1) and appears to exsist solely to skirt the statuory protections for the person under SDA 40(3).
Worse the characterization the fees are an expense does not jive with facts. The bank describes in its literature and letters the cost for this advice as a fee. The advice is provided by the bank – not an independent third party which seems necessary for the fee to be considered an expense. If the bank is in fact deducting from taxable income, money received for providing a service , there is the appearance of tax avoidance which deserves investigation.
Further the PGT’s suggestion that “Ontario courts have held” investment advice as an expense in other specific cases is without merit. Courts deal with the application of statute and case law to the particulars of a specific case. No court has reviewed the specific circumstances in THIS case. If the PGT believe SDA 40(3) does not apply they should bring a motion to court, site those cases (if they exist).
I wonder whether any court would approve an incapable persons being charged more for the service of investment advice that the service provides int returns, when there is an option – leave the money in cash. My Mother is financially better off – though the bank makes less money. That appears consistent with the banks fudiciary duty.
Unfortunately unusal interpertations of the SDA, and their duties to incapable prsons, is par for the course for the PGT.
In 2015 the PGT supported this bank as property guardian before they had filed a plan. Later a plan was filed but the PGT finance department required it be amended. Two years later an amended plan was finally filed – without a cash flow or income statement.
I had to ask 4 times if the PGT were apply the same standards of review to property management plans submitted by individuals as by financial institutions. At one point the PGT said the same standards do apply, but later it became clear they don’t. Individuals have to provide cash flow and income statements, banks apparently do not. Of banks plan with no cash flow the PGT writes:
I did not say that BMO would be refiling their plan with a cash flow and income statement.
It appears contrary to Section 15 of the Charter of Rights to have different standards of review depending on who the party is, for documents the PGT ultimately submits to the courts for approval.
Condoning Potential Financial Abuse
The bank did not follow the first filed plan – which the PGT knew – leaving the person at financial risk. Quarterly reports, proposed in the June 10, 2015 plan were not provided for 2.5 years. When a complete financial picture was finally provided on October 6, 2017 it revealed:
That the property guardian approved paying the lawyer for fees they benefited from has the appearance of a conflict of interest. This is reinforced as the S. 3 lawyer ‘negotiated’ the property guardian’s fees to manage my mother’s assets – including the proposed investment advice fees, which statute says she had no authority to authorise.
While my mother was still ‘deemed capable’, the PGT approved of a proposal that my mother’s PoA for property be replaced with an interim Order (April Order) directing the S. 3 lawyer to instruct the financial institution. Part of the April Order required my mothers belongings, removed by my brother to his house, to be returned to her. The Order was not followed.
Later the property guardian brought a motion my mother’s property, in the possession of others and not missed by her, could be kept by them until her death. One protection my mother lost by the PGT not insisting the June plan be followed, was a requirement the property guardian consult her regarding her property. Neither the PGT appointed S. 3 lawyer or the PGT endorsed property guardian spoke to her about the motion, or whether she missed her property, before supporting the motion in court.
Neither informed the court the property in question was earlier Ordered returned, but that Order was not followed. The PGT knew of this but did nothing.
Condoning Potential Physical Abuse
My consent to the April Order was obtained as the S. 3 lawyer said they would not approve the removal of my mother from care where she was:
isolated, left in excrement, not fed to control vomiting etc.
The PGT had been copied on correspondence regarding this apparent physical abuse and did not investigate as statute requires.
Later when affidavits were filed that physical assault may have also occurred – the PGT again did not investigate. They also made no submissions to the court when the lawyer and counsel for the alleged abuser brought a motion to suppress the affidavits outlining it.
Material Ommissions of Fact to Court?
On Feb 24, 2016 the property guardian paid the S. 3 lawyer approx $163K for services. The next day that S. 3 lawyer, the property guardian’s counsel and PGT counsel appeared before the Appeal Court of Ontario requesting the S. 3 lawyer be relieved of their duties.
None of them informed the court that without an entered Order declaring my mother incapable the property guardian could not be formally appointed, therefore the interim April Order above remained in effect.
The S. 3 lawyer (who the day before had been paid handsomely) and property guardian are fiduciaries to my mother yet they, and the PGT (who was in attendance) seemed to forget to inform the court of the ongoing need for S. 3 under the April Order. The PGT later argued it was my duty to bring this to the attention of the court.
My mother was left without the protection of a Court Order outlining financial responsibilities while the bank controlled her $1.4M in assets without oversight or authority. This situation arose because it appears the PGT believe they have no duty to protect the finances of presumed incapable person when the PGT is before the courts.
Respecting Person Charter Rights and intent of SDA
The PGT does not seem to understand the role of competence in autonomy, or the SDA provisions ensuring that Charter 7 Rights to autonomy are respected.
The PGT not intervening to stop, in fact supported, changing my mothers PoA for property when she was ‘deemed capable’ is one example.
In August 2015, despite a capacity assessment finding my mother incapable and a Judges decision of incapacity, the PGT argued the S.3, hired to purportedly act on my mother’s instruction, should remain representing my mother.
SDA 2 states that a person should be considered capable as long as there is no reason to believe they are not. Surely a capacity assessment my mother is incapable and a judges decision, are reasonable grounds to assume the person is incapable. If one is not capable one cannot instruct a lawyer. This is the fundamental issue for with leave is being sought under (SCC #37808).
If the Premier is serious about ending financial and physical abuse in Ontario she should look to her own house. The PGT seems to desperately and IMMEDIATELY need oversight and direction.
Long-term the legislation mandating LTC homes report potential physical and financial abuse to the police should be extended to include all PGT personnel and those they hire to work with a presumed incapable persons, including S. 3 counsel & litigation guardians.
You have been advised that any actions taken as litigation guardian require you to be represented by counsel. You have not provided the name of your counsel.
On April 25, 2015 you were ordered to return Mom and her belongings to her home. You did not return her coin and stamp collection, though by an earlier email you acknowledged you were aware that Andrew had removed these belongings to his property.
As litigation guardian you should be aware, that BMO under their June 10, 2015 plan stated that they would provide quarterly asset reports. They have not met that obligation. You also should be aware that under SDA 32(10) “a guardian shall act in accordance with the management plan established for the property.” That Justice Tranmer provided time to file an amended plan does not remove the requirement for BMO to operate according to a plan the PGT had described as inadequate. This is clearly stated in the first 6 words of 32 (11) If there is a management plan, it may be amended”. A plan can only be amended if there is a 32(10) plan that must be followed.
The nature of the relationship between yourself and BMO does not appear to be arms length or independent. Ms. Maysekies cost docket shows numerous meetings between your counsel and BMO. On October 22, 2016 BMO brought a motion that property in the possession of children could be retained by them until Mom’s death. The only such property was the coin and stamp collections you did not return as Ordered on April 25, 2015. Your counsel was in attendance at that hearing, as were you. Neither brought to the Judges attention your failure to comply with the April Order, and the property referred to was the coin and stamps.
Subsequent to that hearing Ms. Mayeski’s docket show’s several emails and conversations between herself and your counsel regarding the return of the coins and stamps. The suggestion is that you and BMO have a very close relationship. As they have never consulted with Mom, despite numerous SDA paragraphs requiring them to, the inclusion of that paragraph must have been suggested by one of the parties.
From Feb 25, 2016 to June 1, 2016 there were frequent requests for quarterly reports to provided, to the current date. You were copied on these requests. Regardless of BMO’s duty under their plan, to provide quarterly statements, when statements are received, such as on June 1, 2016, they come through you not BMO. The June 1 2016 statement covered the period May 11 – December 9, 2015 and was described by you as covering the “EnCircle transactions for the period during which Ms. Griesdorf was interim manager of Mom’s assets (i.e. April to December 2015).”
At the time you asserted your role “As litigation guardian, I am willing to undertake an informal detailed accounting well before the two year deadline, and to share all such information with family members. I will do so when there exists an approved management plan. ” There was an approved management plan as a plan cannot be amended unless their is an approved plan (32 (10 & 11).
As litigation guardian you should be familiar with SDA paragraph “25. (1) An order appointing a guardian of property for a person shall include a finding that the person is incapable of managing property.” You were at the August 21, 2015 hearing where Justice Tranmer stated that without an entered order Mom was still deemed capable. You were in attendance on June 25, 2016 when the formal order was finally entered declaring her incapable. Until that time she was deemed capable and BMO could not be appointed property guardian.
Recently it was again you, not BMO that sent two accounts. This, again, suggests BMO forwards information to you, and it is you that elects to forward it. I assume my request to the Supreme Court of Canada, that if my appeal is granted, BMO be ordered to provide accounts, motivated that disclosure as the accounts arrived the day after you were served.
In reviewing those accounts it is immediately apparent that a transfer of $442K occurred on May 19, 2016, when BMO was not property guardian so could not have lawfully authorized it; and both you, and BMO in the affidavit of Lindsay Dunn, acknowledge that Ms. Griesdorf was no longer interim manager.
You were asked the question “Please provide who authorized the May 19, 2016 transfer? Under what authority? When was it authorized?”
Your responding email states “I have *voluntarily* passed on all financial records which have come into my possession and I have stated that I will attempt to address relevant issues at the appropriate time.” Note that you state that forwarding financial records is according to you, voluntary. I do not put much credence in you statement that you have forwarded all financial records – given you did not return mom’s property when ordered to, and there is that appearance of working with BMO to add a clause to their motion so that failure is erased.
I would have thought that as litigation guardian you would consider knowing who transferred $442K, there was not authority for, would be relevant. I deduce that you do not find it relevant, as you are now saying that you could not refuse to provide the information as you do not know who carried out the transfer. Given your duties as litigation guardian, and having been asked to find out who carried out this transfer, not knowing can occur because you refused to ask, have asked and have not been told but will not say that you have not been told, or you were told and have refused to say who carried out the transfer. All suggest a degree of refusal on your part.
Recently BMO informed another party that all questions to it should go through you, suggesting that asking you to find out who carried out the transfer was appropriate and correct. And that BMO expects you to pass on, or filter, those questions.
Given the relationship between yourself and BMO please provide a sworn affidavit that you have received no statements regarding any of mom’s accounts from BMO covering any period after December 09/2015 until 3 days before the statements you forwarded to us on September 21, 2017.
On October 6 you forwarded statements covering $220K in of unreported outflows that you had received from BMO on 3 days earlier. I do not understand why BMO would not send this directly, or why you would sit on it for 3 days. BMO send the material directly – so there is providence for legal accountability.
I note that despite your statement on June 1, 2016 and Ms. Dunn’s affadavit of November 2016 that Ms. Griesdorf ceased to be involved after December, 2015 – the address labels on the statement up to April 2016 are addressed to Wendy Griesdorf, suggesting continued involvement.
In accepting a transfer they would financially benifit from BMO appears to have breached their fiduciary duty to Mom. They may have become complicity in what appears to have occured through misrepresentation. In not asking who carried out a transfer you should know should not have occured, you too may become complicit.
I have altered the sections of my web site you find offensive, noted that you have threatened me with defamation, and posted your email.
Please remember that, as litigation guardian you are liable, are required under the Rules of Procedure to have counsel, and have been advised to get counsel.
I have provided you until Friday 8am October 13, 2017 to inform me of such counsel as I will be filing a report covering the above with authorities.
Attached is link to dropbox that has my draft leave docs. I have until Friday a 3:30 for comments
I have until Friday a 3:30 for comments. If you want to make anomonous comments i hope this provides a method.
I approve comments and will no if you do no want to be.
In August, on the technicality no order was entered, he allowed Section 3 to represent Mrs. Childs. That technicality did not alter Mrs. Childs incapablality – nor did it change the fact she could not instruct counsel.
Section 3 took the position – that after a finding of incapacity, even without an entered order, consulting or seeking instructions from Mrs. Childs makes a mockery of Section 3. She did not recuse herself – and claimed lawyer client privilege throughout – which is to protect the clients instruction.
Mrs. Childs was denied the protection and fundamental justice of a litigation guardian, while suffering the fundamental injustice of having positions advanced in court, as if they were hers, by counsel that did not consult her.
Section 3 positions often differed from Mrs. Childs recorded instruction and were against her current wishes. All persons in the proceedings at jeopardy as they had to choose between advancing positions they consistent Mrs. Childs instructions and current wishes, or concede to Section 3. Through the original hearing and the appeal, I chose the former – resulting in unreasonable costs consequences. Throughout Mrs. Childs wishes and desires have been given scant attention or recognition – by the Section 3, the PGT, the courts, the other parties even though the SDA requires it.
On April 24, 2015, Mrs. Childs was legally capable, a Judge approved an order, on consent of the parties and Section 3, but without Mrs. Childs direct approval, that Mrs. Childs be returned to her home at Sand Lake under C.’s oversight, and that her Power of Attorney for Property be suspended and replaced by Section 3 instructing BMO – who was seeking permeant property guardianship. Section 3 had inserted the change to the Power of Attorney after alleging $700K had gone missing, when neither she or BMO had legal access to the accounts and all money was accounted for.
We consented as Mrs. Childs had pleaded with us to return to Sand Lake. Mrs. Childs was not directly served the April motion. We contended the property provisions of the order were overreach. At the time Section 3 did not defend this as being on instruction providing as reasons parties agreed, BMO’s interest etc. On May 14, 2015 Section 3 states at that Mrs. Childs prefers a bank to manage her affairs due to “her memory problems”. Her PoA had appointed children to manage her funds in such circumstances.
Section 3 consults with and seeks instruction from Mrs. Childs for the last time on May 19, 2015. The only change to Mrs. Childs instructions are listed in the factum of Eileen Childs filed June 10 “At the May 19 meeting Mrs. Childs … indicate[ed] she is pleased to have C. live with her at Sand Lake”.
The report for a capacity assessment carried out May 13, 2015, was released on May 25, 2015. Mrs. Childs was found to be incapable of for both property and personal care.
A comparison of Mrs. Childs wishes as reported to the capacity assessor and instructions to Section 3 is instructive:
On September 12, 2012, when capable, Eileen had made arrangements for banking by invoked her Power of Attorney for Property by writing all financial institutions asking them to honour the PoA stating “To meet my goals of staying in my home as long as possible the time has come to instruct you to honour this Power of Attorney and take their instructions as my own.”
Section 3 did not consult her client despite the assessor’s report on current wishes.
Section 3’s cost docket show she wrote the property management plan for BMO. The SDA requires the property guardian to inform [27(4), 32(2)], consult [32(5)], and involve [32(3)] the person. It requires the applicant confirm Mrs. Childs was informed of the plan’s contents and of her right to oppose the guardianship [70(1ci&ii)]. All are attributed to Section 3, who began the plan the day after her last consultation. Mrs. Childs could not have been informed. Section 3 also wrote and swore BMO’s affidavits. S. 3 spent more time working for BMO than seeking her clients’ instructions. S. 3 billed her client for work done for BMO.
The docket also shows time billed on May 26 & June 3 to review case law on compensation for caregiving. Childs instructions of May 14 state a wish the dispute end but she didn’t know what she could do. Section 3 did not consult with her client regarding case law. She later says “I didn’t talk to Mrs. Childs about it [compensation], I didn’t talk to her about whether she could afford living in Sand Lake and – and didn’t talk to her about Caroline needing money. I talked to her about Caroline’s request for money but not that Caroline couldn’t do the job without money.”
Throughout June the issue of compensation would be discussed. Section 3 offered between $500 – $800 for guardianship – apparently without instruction. She never addressed caregiving costs – as she did not in the management plan.
The hearing occurred June 18, 2015. Section 3 reported were to live at home and have professional care givers and requested that C. be the manager of care not the primary caregiver, and be compensated for that role. Again this position was was made without consulting her client. Given that male managers are paid approx. $15/hr to arrange care there is the appearance that there is a gender bias at work when
On June 25 Judge Tranmer rule that c. was to be a manager not a cregive – though we would later learn he intenced C. to be the care giver. Given that male managers are paid approx. $15/hr to arrange care there is the appearance that there is a gender bias at work when Mrs. Childs has $1.4M in cash assets, at $450K clear house and annual income or $114K and Justice Tranmer awards $00.65/hr for 24/7 care which was less than the amount awarded for past care.
On June 30, 2015 a letter was sent outlining that Caroline intended to comply with the decision, would be arranging professional care and then would seek work.
On July 6, 2015 prior to filing the Motion to Vary Section 3 wrote “I am uncertain whether Mrs. Childs herself, if I had presented this new information to her, would prefer …” a good retirement home now or a poor one later.
Two days later she files the motion, sending a copy directly to the Judge’s chambers, and requests a swift hearing as retirement home placements are available. Her instructions to live at Sand Lake as long as it is safe are not considered. Mrs. Childs is not consulted Section 3 says a she “understood that there would be a day when she may need to leave Sand Lake”.
About July 29, 2015 M. submits another personal care guardianship plan – to place Mrs. Childs in a good retirement home. Section 3 supports that plan without consultation.
There is a settlement conference about Aug 25, 2015. There is a proposal that C. be the caregiver and be paid $50,000/year but have to pay all her respite and Mrs. Childs caregivers out of that amount. Section 3 supports that, also without consulting Mrs. Childs
As the hearing proceeded the fact that Mrs. Childs coins and stamp collections which were at A.’s while Mrs. Childs was there, were not returned as belongings as required of M. under the April Order.
Section 3 took the position that “to the extent this personal property is not needed or missed by Mrs. Childs, the location is [an] .. issue” Section 3 did not consult with Mrs. Childs to see if see missed or needed her belongings.
The property guardian brought a motion that property in the possession of children could be kept by them till Mrs. Childs death. They did not consult with Mrs. Childs. Section 3 supported that motion. She again did not consult with Mrs. Childs.
In Feb 2016 Section 3 wanted to be released. She brought a cross motion, but did not reveal to the court that the April order was still in effect, and she was court ordered to instruct BMO. BMO also at the hearing did not bring this to the courts attention. From Feb 25, 2016 to June 25, 2016 BMO had control of Mrs. Childs funds with no order appointing them and without the oversight of the April 24, 2015 order. The passing of Accounts which Justice MacLeod ruled was a collateral attack on the appeal was to get to how the transfer was in Mrs. Childs best interests’ and what BMO did when operating without an order.