Responding to Michael Childs claim of Defamation

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.

Advertisements
Posted in BMO, Litigation Guardain, Section 3 | Tagged | Leave a comment

Draft Supreme Court Leave

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.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Questions of National Interest

  1. Canada’s aging population, the rise in dementia and the large intergenerational transfer of wealth creates conditions for disputes that pit self-interest against the persons capable and current wishes for their life. The person is not likely a participant in the hearings as their capacity is an issue. If, as in Ontario, counsel is appointed and the person is deemed capable to instruct, the reality of capacity determines the actual ability to instruct counsel in cogent ways that conform to the persons capable intentions. In the absence of counsel informing the court the person cannot instruct, positions are taken as instructions from the person, and protected from examination by lawyer client privilege. This risks courts authorizing instructions given by incapable persons, if counsel fails to recognize or report actual incapacity.

 

  1. In this case Section 3 continued to take positions before the court long after she stopped informing her client of issues in the proceedings and seeking instruction. The Judge ignored the reality of incapacity, which he had ruled was the case in 2015 ONCS 4036, yet since an order had not been formally entered, allowed Section 3 to continue to represent the person. 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.

 

  1. This undermines the course of justice as parties and pits the duties of guardians to follow current capable wishes against lawyer acting without instruction. That 2015 ONSC 6616 reflects Mrs. Childs wishes at all is entirely due to C. and I who continued to argue for her rights and wishes at great cost and time. In assigning costs the trial Judge did not recognize this effort in fact denigrated it while praising Section 3 who acted without instruction. He assigned significant costs against us. The Appeal court upheld his decisions also praising Section 3’s advocacy for her client. The implication is that regardless of ones’ knowledge of a person’s capable wishes, ability to instruct, or fiduciary duty it is not in one’s personal interest to try protect another’s rights and wishes if the courts are involved.
Posted in Legal issues, Section 3 | Leave a comment

An (apparent) Total Disregard of Rights

In 2015 ONSC 4036   Justice Tranmer ruled Mrs. Childs was incapable for property and personal care.

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:

  • Section 3 states “Mrs Childs wishes to live in her own home at Sand lake only as long as it is safe for her to remain there. The capacity assessor says Mrs. Childs says “I want to stay here as long as I can, until I die. Have someone write it down.” The capacity assessor also notes Mrs. Childs has no concept of safety.
  • Section 3 states “When it is no longer safe for her to remain in her home she wishes to be in a living environment with people her age and where there are activities. She recognizes this may be soon given her memory problems.” The capacity assessor says “I then asked if she had a choice, if she were bedridden, should she should go into a nursing home or would she accept help at home. “I would have to accept help wouldn’t I? I am going to stay here as long as I can, until I pack it in.” I commented that she might have more company and more things to do if she lived with others in a nursing home and she said, “I wouldn’t go there…..”
  • Section 3 states “Because of her memory problems she knows she cannot look after her money. She prefers a bank to manage her assets and pay her bills.” The capacity assessor says “I told her she was a wealthy woman. She responded “I don’t know. I don’t think much about it. Further “she informed me C. kept tabs on what was spent” and “It was ‘absolutely OK’ with her if C. did all the money handling. And then of protecting her assets “No the kids are good; they wouldn’t do it”.

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.

[1]

Posted in Judges, Legal issues, Section 3 | Leave a comment

Instructions vs Wishes

A comparison of Mrs. Childs instructions to Section 3 reported May 14, 2015 and her wishes and observations reported by the capacity assessor on May 25, 2014 is instructive:

Section 3 states “Mrs Childs wishes to live in her own home at Sand lake only as long as it is safe for her to remain there.

The capacity assessor says Mrs. Childs says “I want to stay here as long as I can, until I die. Have someone write it down. The capacity assessor also notes Mrs. Childs has no concept of safety.

Section 3 states “When it is no longer safe for her to remain in her home she wishes to be in a living environment with people her age and where there are activities. She recognizes this may be soon given her memory problems.”

The capacity assessor says “I then asked if she had a choice, if she were bedridden, should she should go into a nursing home or would she accept help at home. “I would have to accept help wouldn’t I? I am going to stay here as long as I can, until I pack it in.” I commented that she might have more company and more things to do if she lived with others in a nursing home and she said, “I wouldn’t go there…..”

Similar wishes were expressed to the CCAC and contained in a geriatric report carried out by a geriatric physician. Both were provided to the court.

Section 3 states “Because of her memory problems she knows she cannot look after her money. She prefers a bank to manage her assets and pay her bills.”

The capacity assessor says “I told her she was a wealthy woman. She responded “I don’t know. I don’t think much about it. Further “she informed me Caroline kept tabs on what was spent” and “It was ‘absolutely OK’ with her if Caroline did all the money handling. And then of protecting her assets “No the kids are good; they wouldn’t do it”.

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.”

On receiving the capacity assessor’s report – Section 3 did not visit or consult her client.

If you were counsel wouldn’t you as the report seems to indicate Mrs. Childs wishes and therefore instructions may have changed? I know I would.

Posted in Capacity, Section 3, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Section 7 Charter Abuse?

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights enshrines every competent person full rights to autonomy and self-determination.

Ontario’s Substitute Decision Act chips away at that, allowing appointment of counsel for a person whose capacity is at issue before the courts. The person does not choose counsel, nor can they fire them, and if they have the means they must pay fees for all services – whether they are consulted and approve the service or not.

Judges can make that worse by not ensuring that Section 3’s actions are tied to the persons instruction. In 2015 ONSC 4036 Justice Tranmer ruled Mrs. Childs was incapable, yet in August he allowed Section 3 to represent a client he had ruled was not capable to give instructions. Reason? No Order had been entered. That technicality allowed Section 3 to take the position she didn’t have to consult or seek instructions – and she didn’t.

I asked Judge Tranmer:

Either she is my Mom’s lawyer and is supposed to do something for her, or is she not?

If she’s a lawyer she should be consulting with her client. If Section 3 doesn’t believe Mrs. Childs is competent she should inform the court. Either way the Act says if Mrs. Childs is competent, her instructions are competent wishes and shall be followed if not, they are current wishes and the court and guardians should consider them.

But no one knows what Mrs. Childs is, or what her wishes are, because Tranmer’r two ruling put Mrs. Childs in legal limbo – technically capable but ruled incapable and Section 3 took that to mean she had a new role not defined in legislation that of an advocate – reporting best interests. The Appeal Court in 2017 ONCA 516 noting that Section 3 last spoke with her client on May 17, 2015 – but failed to focus on the fact that after this there were 7 months of billings, 6 days of hearings, settlement conferences, mediation etc – non of which Section 3 consulted Mrs. Childs about.

When you look at the Rules of Professional Conduct, there are options for arbitration, parties should enter it, and if my Mom has a position, even if she says she is desirous or not desirous of it.  That is what there is from Section 3, is dead silence in terms of instructions.

In August, the PGT said section 3 was necessary, so the incapable person would have a voice in the hearings.  In a dispute between attorneys’ section 3 can be the only mechanism for the Court to know the incapable person’s position.

Under the Rules of Professional Conduct, the lawyer is bound to advocate according to the client’s instructions.

A lawyer representing a client who is party to a dispute that other parties must confidentially and diligently develop and argue the position of the client.

Contrary to this, on October 22nd, Section 3 reported that her duty was to report best interests, as Mrs. Childs is no longer capable. This is not section 3’s duty.  Even if it could be done, it cannot be done without an understanding of the person’s capable and current wishes according to 66.4 of the Act, and that basically says, In deciding a person’s best interest, the guardian shall take into a consideration, the values and the beliefs, the person held incapable, and the person’s current wishes, if they can be ascertained.

The Act could have applied this to section 3, either in section 3 of the Act, or in section 66.4.  It didn’t.

Section 3 is not to present best interest, but to present the client’s instructions, capable wishes, and current wishes, so the Court and guardian can determine what is in the best interest.

Instead, we don’t have Mom’s wishes because Section 3 has not:

  • reviewed the guardianship of personal care plan with Mom
  • not reviewed the two property management plans with Mom

both of which the Act says should be done. If she prefers one, and is capable that should be followed and  if there are current issues, should be considered. Neither occurs. AND without seeking additional instructions, Section 3 proceeds with litigation against one of those plans.

On October 22nd, this was illustrated when Section 3 suggested that the Court should consider replacing the no heroic measures provisions of Mom’s POA for personal care include a Do Not Resuscitate provision.  Section 3 has not talked to my Mother about that, so I don’t know why that would be put forward.  Is that section 3 acting on her personal beliefs?

On October 22nd, Section 3 suggested that only capable wishes matter.  The Act says current wishes matter if they can be ascertained.  There are diferences in a capacity assessor’s report because she is a professional social worker, in capacity assessment and saw Mom on May 13th What is interesting is throughout the report, Mom’s voice comes through of Mom.  [They] is observed.

She is oriented, orientated towards place and explains correctly that her husband had built the home.  She said, “I want to stay here as long as I can, until I die.  Have someone write that down.”

Asked more specifically,

If you could no longer walk or were bed ridden?  Would you have to be cared for in a nursing home?  I would have to accept help, wouldn’t I?  I am going to stay here as long as I can, until I pack it in. She was equally clear about what she did not want.  I asked if she knew anyone named Michael, and she replied, one of the family.  He doesn’t stay around very long.  How is he related to me?

And

there’s a couple, and I’m thinking of children, want to put me in a nursing home.  They want money, money.

How much weight you give to these statements depends on exactly on when competence is deemed lost.  So while Justice Tranmer ruled in August Mrs. Childs was ‘technically capable’ none of this made the court as Section 3 said Mrs. Childs is not capable to instruct and didn’t consult.

I think the combined actions of Judge Tranmer and Section 3 cost Mrs. Childs her charter right.

Posted in Elder Abuse, Judges, Law Reform, Legal issues, Section 3 | Leave a comment

Caring for someone with dementia

They live in the moment. They enjoy people, food life.

They are like you and me, but without memory they lack the access to experience which is so important for judgement.

For some good advice on providing care check-out this page

Posted in Care | Leave a comment