Elder abuse

The appellants, operators of a long-term care home, appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their defamation action under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act (anti-SLAPP motion).

The respondent had posted approximately 100 tweets over three years on anonymous accounts alleging elder abuse and serious wrongdoing at the facility.

The motion judge found the tweets related to a matter of public interest and dismissed the action.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge made reviewable errors in her section 137.1(4) analysis by failing to properly assess whether the defamation claim had merit and whether the appellants had suffered harm, and by assuming the respondent's expression had value without conducting the necessary preliminary analysis.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) applied for an order compelling Jason Snelgrove to reimburse funds allegedly misappropriated from his mother, Loreen Snelgrove, a vulnerable senior with dementia, while he acted as her attorney for property.

The court found that Jason Snelgrove breached his fiduciary duty by failing to account for expenditures and using funds contrary to his mother's interests.

Despite Jason's claims of ignorance regarding record-keeping and his mother's capacity to instruct him, the court ordered him to repay a significant portion of the funds.

The accused pleaded guilty to a major mortgage fraud targeting an 83-year-old woman with dementia living in a long-term care home.

The accused and an unidentified female accomplice impersonated the victim and her son to secure a fraudulent mortgage, resulting in a loss of over $780,000 borne by the bank.

The court rejected the defence's request for a conditional sentence, emphasizing the need for denunciation and deterrence given the vulnerability of the victim and the high moral blameworthiness of the offence.

The accused was sentenced to three years in the penitentiary and ordered to pay $583,455 in restitution.

The applicant sought an interim injunction to preserve the respondent mother's assets pending a guardianship application, alleging the mother lacked capacity and was subject to undue influence by a new, much younger husband.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no medical evidence to support the claim of incapacity and that the issue of undue influence was premature as the mother was alive and deemed capable.

The court emphasized that a competent person has the right to make decisions deemed foolish by others.

Robert Mark Roe appealed a lower court decision that upheld his mother's 2005 Will, which disinherited him.

He argued that his mother, Beverly Grace Roe, lacked testamentary capacity due to insane delusions and was unduly influenced by his brother, Rick.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the application judge's findings, concluding that Beverly's beliefs, though at times irrational, had a factual basis, and that she was not unduly influenced.

The court also confirmed that a testator only needs a general understanding of their assets for testamentary capacity.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent Randall Scott Roe.

The defendant moved to dismiss a defamation action brought by a long-term care home and its CEO regarding tweets she made alleging elder abuse and neglect of her mother.

The court granted the anti-SLAPP motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, finding that the tweets related to a matter of public interest and that the plaintiffs failed to show sufficient harm to outweigh the public interest in protecting the expression.

The action was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendant.

The plaintiff, an elderly man in long-term care, brought an urgent motion to remove Notices of Security Interest (NOSIs) registered on his property's title by the defendants, who are alleged to be involved in a door-to-door HVAC and financing scheme.

The property was sold under mortgage enforcement proceedings and the sale could not close with the NOSIs on title.

The defendants did not respond to the motion.

The court ordered the NOSIs removed upon the plaintiff's undertaking to hold sufficient funds in trust, validated service, ordered the defendants to produce the underlying security agreements within 15 days, and appointed the plaintiff's daughter as his litigation guardian.

The plaintiff, an elderly woman, claimed recovery of money alleged to have been loaned to her daughters and son-in-law.

The defendants asserted the money was a gift.

The court applied the presumption of resulting trust, placing the onus on the defendants to prove a gift.

Considering the plaintiff's unreliable testimony, inconsistencies with her pleading, and credible evidence from a granddaughter, the court found that the defendants successfully rebutted the presumption, establishing that the payments were intended as gifts.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Marnie Affleck, sued Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., Sunrise of Erin Mills, Jennifer Seehra, and Elisabette Garcia for negligent infliction of nervous shock and defamation, seeking substantial damages.

The claims against her sister and father's estate were dismissed earlier.

The plaintiff, self-represented, alleged that the defendants unreasonably impeded her ability to see her mother, a resident at Sunrise, causing her trauma and injuries.

The court found that the defendants' actions were reasonable and justified, taken to protect the mother from financial and emotional abuse by the plaintiff, and to maintain a safe environment for staff and other residents.

The court also found the plaintiff's evidence lacked credibility and medical support for her alleged injuries.

The claims for negligent infliction of nervous shock and defamation were dismissed.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs of $330,000 to the defendants due to the plaintiff's unreasonable conduct and lack of preparation.

The moving party brought a motion to set aside an ex parte order that froze her bank accounts and made her personally liable for a judgment regarding funds allegedly misappropriated from the responding party's elderly father.

She also argued the seized funds were exempt from seizure under the Wages Act as they originated from a WSIB settlement.

The court dismissed the motion to return the seized funds, exercising its discretion to reduce the wage exemption to 0% for the already seized amounts due to strong prima facie evidence of financial impropriety.

However, the court varied the order to allow an 80% exemption for future wages and directed a trial of the issue regarding her ultimate liability.

The accused pleaded guilty to theft over $5,000 committed between May 2, 2012 and March 1, 2016.

As Power of Attorney for her mother's personal care and property, the accused depleted her mother's bank accounts and investments by approximately $161,000, spending the money on gambling, living expenses, and overseas travel.

The court rejected a conditional sentence and imposed six months imprisonment followed by three years probation with conditions prohibiting the accused from holding positions of trust and requiring counselling.

A stand-alone restitution order of $161,000 was made in favour of the estate.

This is a costs decision following a motion where the applicant's request for injunctive relief was denied, though an order for preservation of evidence was made.

The respondent sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the respondent, finding the applicant's attempt to bring the initial motion ex parte inappropriate and unjustified, especially given prior negotiations between counsel.

The relief sought by the applicant was deemed overly broad and an unwarranted intrusion into the respondent's operations.

The applicant's procedure was characterized as ill-conceived and unjustified, leading to significant legal expenses for both parties.

The applicants sought to remove Arthur and Douglas Carey as attorneys for property and personal care for their mother, Jennie Carey, and to appoint Robert Carey as guardian, alleging financial impropriety and isolation.

The court found strong evidence of misconduct and neglect regarding property management, including failure to account for funds and non-compliance with disclosure orders.

While Jennie was physically well cared for and wished to remain with Arthur and Douglas, their failure to foster family contact was a breach of personal care duties.

The court removed Arthur and Douglas as sole attorneys.

For property, Arthur, Robert, and Edward Carey were appointed joint guardians.

For personal care, Arthur and Robert were appointed joint guardians.

The court emphasized a nuanced approach to balance Jennie's well-being and wishes with the need for financial oversight and family contact.

The appellant appealed his conviction for theft and fraud, and his sentence of three years' custody with a restitution order of $125,000.

The appellant had managed his elderly mother's finances and depleted her retirement savings from approximately $557,000 to $83.43 over two and a half years.

The trial judge found the appellant had stolen at least $200,000.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the admission of two videotaped statements made by his mother to police and raised a Charter delay argument for the first time.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and sentence, finding no error in the trial judge's admissibility ruling and declining to entertain the Charter argument raised for the first time on appeal.

A personal support worker employed at a long-term care facility was convicted of assault causing bodily harm after punching a 97-year-old resident in his care, causing severe bruising.

The offender, a 26-year-old first-time offender with no prior criminal record, was sentenced following a summary conviction trial.

The Crown sought four to six months imprisonment plus probation, while the defence sought a non-custodial or intermittent sentence.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of six months to be served in the community, balancing the objectives of denunciation and deterrence against rehabilitation of a youthful first offender.

The plaintiffs, a couple who sponsored the immigration of the wife's elderly parents (the Nikityuks) from Russia, sued the parents and the YMCA (and an employee) for inducing breach of contract, negligence, conspiracy, and defamation after the parents moved out of their shared home into social housing.

The Nikityuks counterclaimed for fraud, misrepresentation, conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty, seeking damages for lost capital and a constructive trust on the home.

The court dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims, finding no malice or unlawful conduct by the YMCA defendants.

The court granted the Nikityuks' counterclaim, finding that the plaintiffs had financially abused the Nikityuks, breached their contract and fiduciary duties, and committed civil fraud by misrepresenting investment returns on the Nikityuks' capital, which was subsequently lost in the stock market.

The Nikityuks were awarded damages for their lost capital, interest, a constructive trust on the Innisfil property, and punitive damages.

The accused, a personal support worker at a long-term care facility, pleaded guilty to assaulting an elderly dementia patient in a wheelchair.

The assault was captured on video surveillance and consisted of 11 strikes to the victim's face during a diaper change.

The victim suffered no physical injuries but the family experienced significant emotional trauma.

The court imposed a 90-day intermittent jail sentence with 18 months' probation, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing principles.

The court rejected a conditional sentence order, finding that incarceration was necessary to protect vulnerable populations and deter similar conduct by caregivers.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment against Melissa Gibson-Heath for theft from an elderly resident and for summary judgment against DC Jain & Sons Inc. on the basis of vicarious liability.

The court granted default judgment against Gibson-Heath for the unrecovered stolen amount of $155,468.46 plus pre-judgment interest and costs, declaring the judgment to survive bankruptcy due to fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.

However, punitive damages against Gibson-Heath were denied given her prior criminal sentence.

The motion for summary judgment against DC Jain & Sons Inc. was dismissed, as the evidentiary record was deemed insufficient to determine vicarious liability, particularly regarding the arrangement of care services and the employer's creation of risk.

A case conference was ordered to further develop the record.

The applicants sought orders under the Substitute Decisions Act appointing them as guardians of the person and property of an elderly individual alleged to be incapable of managing her affairs.

The court considered medical evidence, family affidavits, and video evidence suggesting the individual was vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation.

Evidence also raised concerns about financial mismanagement by an existing attorney under a power of attorney.

The court found the individual incapable of managing property and personal care, removed the existing attorney, and appointed the applicants as joint guardians.

A formal capacity assessment and management plan oversight were also ordered.

The accused, a Personal Support Worker (PSW) at the Perley-Rideau Hospital, was convicted of common assault contrary to s. 266 of the Criminal Code for bending back three fingers of an elderly 90-year-old patient suffering from advanced Alzheimer's disease.

The assault caused no physical injury.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of three to four months plus three years probation, emphasizing the breach of trust and need for general deterrence in elder abuse cases.

The defence sought a conditional sentence of two to six months plus probation, highlighting the accused's clean record, positive character references, and mental health struggles.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of 90 days to be served in the community, followed by one year of probation, finding that while a jail sentence was warranted due to the breach of trust, the specific circumstances and the accused's personal background supported a conditional approach that could adequately address denunciation and deterrence.