Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-24-00719272 DATE: 20240710

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: JENNIFER LYNN JAMES, Applicant AND: CAROL FERN JAMES and JEANNIE ANDREW and THE PUBLIC GUARDIAN AND TRUSTEE, Respondents

BEFORE: M. D. Faieta J.

COUNSEL: Bryan C. McPhadden, for the Applicant A. Sean Graham & Christopher M.B. Graham, for the Respondent Carol Fern James No one appearing for the Respondent Jeannie Andrew and The Public Guardian and Trustee

HEARD: June 3, 2024

Endorsement

Faieta J.

[1] The Applicant, Jennifer Lynn James (“the Applicant”), brings this motion for an interim injunction to preserve the Respondent Carol Fern James’ assets pending the hearing of her guardianship application.

Background

[2] The Applicant and her sister, Dr. Lesley James (“Lesley”), are the daughters of Carol Fern James (“Carol”). The Applicant resides in Toronto and Lesley resides in Rochester, New York. Carol, who is 79 years old, primarily resides in a townhome in Toronto, Ontario and spends the winter months each year in a townhome that she has owned for about 12 years in Fort Myers, Florida. Carol has net assets of about $11 million.

[3] Carol’s first husband, Roger James, developed Alzheimer’s disease in 2009. Carol states that she took care of him for about 8 years, including travelling with him, with very little help from her daughters. Roger died in January 2017.

[4] With Roger’s passing, under the terms of a Primary Will and a Secondary Will that Carol made in October 2013, the Applicant is named as Executor and the residue of Carol’s estate is to be divided equally between Carol’s grandchildren. It is estimated that Carol has a net worth of about $12 million. There is no evidence that Carol has subsequently made another Will.

[5] In 2019, Carol signed two powers of attorney. Carol’s Continuing Power of Attorney names the Applicant as her attorney. There are no restrictions on the authority granted. Carol’s Power of Attorney for Personal Care also names the Applicant as her attorney and states that the Applicant may make any personal care decision for Carol that she is incapable of making for herself.

[6] In the Fall of 2022, the Florida townhome suffered considerable damage. This caused Carol stress as she has had to deal with contractors and the condominium corporation related to the repair of her unit. Further, Carol did not have insurance coverage for the contents of her townhome.

[7] The Applicant and Lesley state that they have always been very close to Carol and that they speak regularly, and sometimes everyday. They do not allege any concerns with Carol until she met Gideon Amofa (“Gideon”).

[8] On March 14, 2024, Carol asked the Applicant to book a flight, using Carol’s credit card, for Carol and a companion to attend her grandson’s wedding in Hungary. The Applicant refused to book the flight after she was told that Carol’s friend was Gideon and that he was 31 years old. The Applicant suggested that Carol speak with Sam. Sam told Carol that he was not comfortable with her bringing Gideon to his wedding. As a result, Carol cancelled her flight. The Applicant states that her relationship with Carol rapidly declined following this episode, although they remained in contact. Carol told the Applicant more about her relationship with Gideon and that he brought flowers and would sometimes come to her place for dinner. Carol sent her pictures of his dogs and a cake that she made for him.

[9] In March 2024, Carol told Lesley that she was thinking of applying for American citizenship and that Gideon would assist her, and possibly sponsor her.

[10] On March 26, 2024, Carol told Lesley that Gideon had bought her flowers, come to dinner, sat on a swing and talked politics with her until 1:00 a.m.

[11] Since March 27, 2024, Carol has not responded to any messages sent by the Applicant.

[12] On March 29, 2024, Lesley retained the services of a private investigator to conduct a background search on Gideon. The report provided only “rudimentary” information about Gideon.

[13] On April 9, 2024, Carol told Lesley that she was thinking about purchasing a home in Bonita Springs, Florida that is about 2,600 square feet in size and has an estimated value of USD$899,000.00. Lesley states that Carol’s rationale for buying this property is that it is outside the flood zone and does not have condo fees. Lesley became alarmed as the home is on 1.5 acres of land, rather than in a gated community, and is about a 30-minute drive away from her current residence and thus isolates her from her current neighbours. Lesley states that Carol told her that a neighbour had recommended this new property to her, but that neighbour subsequently denied making any such recommendation.

[14] The Applicant states:

My mother is not fond [of] Bonita Springs and has told me in the past that she could not see herself living there. The property is far from friends she has known for years and is not close to any of her friends. The property does not appear to be in a gated community, and this gives me serious concerns about my mother’s welfare. Her supposed choice of this property is not in any way keeping with her station in life. I do not believe that my mother is thinking straight at this time.

[15] Being concerned for her mother, Lesley visited her mother in Fort Myers from April 9 to 11, 2024. Lesley states that Gideon informed her that he was originally from Ghana, that his family moved to the United States when he was 11 years old, that his parents still live in Illinois, and that he attended Northern Ohio University where he obtained a doctorate in pharmacy.

[16] Given that Carol was not in contact with the Applicant, Lesley states that she persuaded a police officer in Florida to do a welfare check on Carol at her home on April 16, 2024. There is no evidence regarding the outcome of this welfare check other than that Carol was quite unhappy with the police welfare check and became more upset with the Applicant, who she suspected had arranged it.

[17] On April 16, 2024, Lesley learned from Peter Sorra, being Carol’s financial advisor at TD Wealth Private Investment Advice, that Carol had made an offer to purchase a house and had asked him to transfer USD $1 million from her investment accounts. This request was made only four days after she had seen the house. Lesley states that she believes that Carol had not discussed this purchase with her financial advisor or family.

[18] On April 18, 2024, Peter Sorra states that Carol asked him if she could change her Powers of Attorney in order to make Lesley her attorney rather than the Applicant. Sorra recommended that Carol speak to the Applicant and Lesley. Carol asked whether he had sent the police to conduct a welfare check.

[19] On April 18, 2024, the Applicant received a text message from Carol’s cell phone:

Greetings Jennifer.

This is Gideon. I want to formally introduce myself. Your mother has told me quite a lot about you (all great things). I know how you feel and think about me. However, I would like to clear up a few misconceptions that you have about me. First, and foremost, I am NOT a con man. I am a licensed pharmacist here in Florida. Have a beautiful home and two lovely dogs. I have nothing to hide. I met your mother about two months ago and she’s one of the most wonderful human beings that I’ve met. I’ve gotten to know her well and we are great friends. I can guarantee you that she is in great condition and doing very well. I came over to her place for lunch/dinner. I have no ill intentions towards her and never will. Feel free to reach out to me should you have any concerns.

Sincerely,

Dr. Gideon Amofa

224-xxx-xxxx

[20] On April 18, 2024, Lesley received a call from a real estate agent in Toronto that had helped Carol to buy her townhome in Toronto. The agent stated that Carol told her that she wanted to write a new Will and wanted the contact information for the lawyer that had prepared her earlier Wills.

[21] On April 19, 2024, Lesley and the Applicant spoke with Peter Sorra. He stated that Carol wanted USD $1 million on or by May 2. He believed that this request was out of character for Carol. The Applicant states that Peter Sorra told them:

Recently, my mother informed him that she wanted to liquidate approximately $1 million in her investments as she had just agreed to purchase another property in Florida. She had said that she wanted the $1 million on or by May 2. These plans and requests struck Sorra as being out of character for my mother. On April 18, he spoke to my mother for about another 20 minutes. When he first called, Amofa was with her. As Sorra was concerned about the possibility of my mother being subject to undue influence, Sorra asked my mother if he could call her later when Amofa was not there and, specifically, asked [whether] they could have a video call with her. My mother’s response to a proposed video call was, “absolutely not”. On this call, my mother also advised that she wanted $80,000 immediately as she wanted to pay for a pool. Sorra subsequently advised me that my mother now wants $200,000, ostensibly for the pool.

On April 18, 2024, Peter Sorra called Carol and asked her why on the April 18 call, Sorra asked my mother why she wanted to do these things, and in such a rush, and found that my mother was not able to provide a reasonable response. Sorra believes that my mother has other plans for at least some of the monies she has requested be sent to her. Sorra believes the notion of a pool is simply a ruse so that monies can be sent sooner than the house money on May 2.

I share Sorra’s observations. My mother dislikes pools and never showed an interest in them. …I share Sorra’s view that my mother has other pans for the money and am concerned that she is not providing an adequate explanation.

[22] Within days the Applicant and Lesley retained a lawyer in Florida to protect Carol. Lesley was advised that upon commencement of such proceedings in Florida, Carol would be automatically required to be evaluated by a physician, a psychologist and a psychiatrist. At about the same time, Lesley arranged for the private investigator to conduct additional surveillance on Gideon to ascertain whether he was spending more time with Carol. Gideon waived down the investigator when he passed his home and asked who he was and what he was doing.

[23] On April 20, 2024, Lesley spoke with Gideon. Lesley states that Gideon told her that:

(a) He has known Carol for a little over one month. (b) He had met Carol at the pharmacy, located at a Publix supermarket, where he works. (c) Carol had attended the pharmacy looking for a cheaper prescription that she takes. (d) Thereafter Carol would stop by the pharmacy to see him. (e) He and Carol are friends. (f) He has a similar relationship with other pharmacy customers. (g) He last saw Carol two days earlier. (h) He sees Carol every other week. (i) He was aware of the home in Bonita Springs that Carol had agreed to buy. (j) He assisted Carol in looking for the home in Bonita Springs. (k) He introduced Carol to the real estate agent that she used to purchase the home. (l) He did not know whether Carol had a lawyer to act on her behalf for the purchase of the home. (m) Carol had not spoken to him about her Will(s). (n) Carol had told him that she was leaving everything to her grandchildren. (o) He did not know if Carol had current health insurance in Florida. He assumed that Carol was covered in Canada. (p) He did not know about Carol’s plan to immigrate to the United States or any steps that she had taken. (q) Carol had talked about possibly marrying a neighbour in Fort Myers. (r) Carol had raised the possibility of him attending Sam’s wedding in June. He said that Carol raised this possibility within 2-3 weeks of meeting him.

[24] After this conversation, Lesley decided that it was best to commence proceedings to protect Carol. She states:

Initially, my thoughts were that Amofa may or may not be a threat to my mother but that if she was capable as making the poor decisions that she was, the next person to make her acquaintance may well be a threat to her personally and to her asset. Accordingly, I decided it was probably best for the herein application and the Florida application to be commenced so as to protect my mother.

[25] On April 23, 2024, Lesley returned to Florida to check on Carol. Carol told Lesley that she was in Key West and thinking about driving to Disney World with Amofa. Lesley states that the guard at the gate of Carol’s townhome advised her that Carol had left with a man fitting Gideon’s description. On the next day, Carol did not return Lesley’s text message. The guard at the gate of Carol’s townhome advised her that Carol had returned to her townhome.

[26] On April 23, 2024, Lesley also spoke to “Ray”, Carol’s neighbour in Fort Myers, who told her that:

He has not seen my mother much this season as she keeps to herself and rarely ventures outside. She seems to be desperate for a man in her life and offers wine to almost any man [that] comes to her door. He is also aware that a man fitting the description of Gideon Amofa stayed overnight at my mother’s house. My mother has mentioned to him that she is trying to sell her Florida condominium property.

[27] On April 24, 2024, TD Wealth Private Investment sent a letter to Carol notifying her of a temporary hold had been placed on her accounts. This letter, from Martha Hill, Branch Manager, TD Wealth Private Investment Advice, states:

…This letter is to inform you that a temporary hold has been placed on your accounts held with TD Wealth given our concerns related to the recent transfer request of $1,100,000 (USD) to fund the real estate transaction in Florida (the “Transaction”). Accordingly, in order to proceed with the Transaction, we require an original or notarized copy of a Solicitor’s Letter of Opinion (“SLO”) to confirm the following:

• the lawyer met with the client alone;
• the legal nature and effect of the Transaction, the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the Transaction, and the instructions regarding your accounts and the potential tax and other financial consequences that may flow from the Transaction;
• that you are undertaking the Transaction out of your own full, free and informed consent.

In keeping with the TD Waterhouse Canada Inc. Account and Services Agreements and Disclosure Documents, a temporary hold has been placed on your account(s) for the following reasons:

a) We reasonably believe that you are vulnerable and that you are the subject or target of financial exploitation b) We reasonably believe that you are experiencing diminished mental capacity which may affect your ability to make financial decisions Both (a) and (b) above.

We will review the relevant facts at regular intervals to determine if continuing the temporary hold is appropriate. If we determine that the temporary hold should continue, we will update you with the reasons for that decision within 30 days of the date of this letter. We will remove the temporary hold once we determine that the reasons that caused us to place the hold no longer apply. We reasonably believe that you are vulnerable and that you are the subject or target of financial exploitation.

[28] The Applicant states that Carol has assets of about $10.9 million (including her townhome in Toronto and assets of about $9.4 million held by TD) as well as the Fort Myers townhome (about $284,000 USD).

[29] On April 29, 2024, Carol and Gideon were married in Fort Myers, Florida. The Applicant and Lesley were unaware of her marriage for weeks.

Notice of Application (Ontario) – April 29, 2024

[30] This Application was commenced on April 29, 2024. The Applicant alleges that:

(a) Carol is unable to make rational decisions about her property and is not making rational decisions about her personal care. (b) Carol does not comprehend relevant information and does not recognize the consequences of making or not making decisions. (c) If a person’s capacity is in issue in a proceeding under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 30 (“SDA”) and the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is incapable, then under s. 79 of the SDA, the court may, on motion or on its own initiative, order that the person be assessed by one or more assessors for the purpose of giving an opinion of the person’s capacity.

[31] The Applicant seeks the following relief:

(a) An Order declaring Carol is incapable of managing her property and incapable of making personal care decisions and, as a consequence, an Order appointing the Applicant as guardian of property and as full guardian of the person for Carol pursuant to sections 22 and 55 of the SDA. (b) An Order that Carol be restrained from transferring, assigning, mortgaging or otherwise encumbering her Toronto home. (c) An Order restraining Carol and any other person from transferring, using, spending, dissipating, or otherwise disposing of any personal property of Carol without the Applicant’s approval. (d) An Order approving the Applicant’s management plan with respect to the management of the Carol’s property and her guardianship plan of the person of Carol. (e) An Order that the costs of this Application be paid out of Carol’s property.

[32] However, the Applicant does not ask for an Order that Carol undergo a capacity assessment.

[33] In her supporting affidavit, the Applicant states that her lawyer has contacted numerous capacity assessors and is awaiting to learn whether they will accept a retainer in this matter. The Applicant also states that she has started preparing a Guardianship Plan. Carol’s parents are deceased. She has three siblings. Two siblings are deceased. Carol has had an acrimonious relationship with the third sibling, Jeannie Duggan, and they have not seen each other in years. The PGT takes the position that it does not have standing to participate in this proceeding because Carol is not presently residing in Ontario and because incapacity has not been established by a capacity assessment.

[34] Lesley filed an affidavit sworn April 29, 2024, that referenced certain exhibits, but none were attached. She indicated that phone records show that Gideon first initiated contact with Carol by text on February 29, 2024. There was continuous communication between them from March 4, 2024, until March 13, 2024. Lesley believes that Carol now primarily uses WhatsApp to send messages.

Ex Parte Application – May 2, 2024

[35] The Application was heard on an ex parte basis on May 2, 2024. At that time, Gilmore J. granted an interim order freezing Carol’s assets in Ontario. Her Endorsement states:

6. The service requirements of this Application under the Substitute Decisions Act have not yet been fulfilled. Most importantly, the Application has not yet been served on Carol and must be served on her personally and forthwith. No Management or Guardianship Plan was submitted with the Application.

7. Further, there is insufficient evidence of incapacity to grant the broad Orders sought by the Applicant today.

8. The title of proceedings must be amended to add the Public Guardian and Trustee as statutory Respondent and proof of service on the PGT must be provided. The PGT is aware of this Application and has indicated that it will not become involved in this case as Carol in not currently residing in Ontario. This would also prevent the appointment of s.3 counsel if requested.

9. The main relief sought today centres on an Order to preserve Carol’s assets pending further steps in this case.

10. I have read the texts between Mr. Amofa and Carol and I am concerned that Carol may be the victim of undue influence or a form of elder financial abuse. However, at this point, there is no medical evidence that Carol is incapable.

11. Further, the daughters’ concerns may be borne out by Carol’s intention to transfer a large amount of her assets to Florida allegedly to purchase a home she does not need.

12. With respect to the injunctive relief sought, I find that there is sufficient evidence to support that there is a serious issue to be tried, that irreparable harm may be suffered by Carol if the injunctive relief is not granted and that the balance of convenience favours the granting of the relief. An undertaking as to damages has been given.

13. The Order sought is temporary and returnable on May 14, 2024, to ensure that Carol may be served and that her evidence may be brought before the Court in a short turnaround.

14. In addition to the terms of the signed Order which is attached, I make the following Orders:

(a) The Applicant must provide a proper factum on the return date which has a hyperlinked index and caselaw as per the Practice Direction from June 2023. A factum was not provided for today’s appearance and should have been. (b) The terms of today’s Order expire at 5:00 p.m. on May 14, 2024. (c) If Carol returns to Ontario, consideration should be made for the appointment of s.3 counsel if Carol does not retain her own counsel. (d) The Applicant to file a Management Plan and a Guardianship Plan as required by the Substitute Decisions Act.

[36] The Order issued May 2, 2024, provides that:

1. Carol’s assets in Ontario shall be preserved pending further Order of this Court.
2. Various accounts held by Carol at TD Canada Trust and TD Private Investment Advice shall be preserved.
3. This Order shall be registered on title against Carol’s home in Toronto.
4. The Public Guardian and Trustee shall be added as a respondent.
5. This Order shall not be interpreted to impinge upon, restrict or limit he discretion of the Courts of the State of Florida or any other jurisdiction in which Carol is resident or located o make orders regarding Carol’s property or person.
6. The Application Record and Order shall be forthwith served on the Respondents.
7. The Application shall be adjourned to May 14, 2024, to be heard for 30 minutes.
8. Costs are reserved to the Judge hearing the Application.

Application - May 14, 2024

[37] On May 8, 2024, Mr. Graham notified Mr. McPhadden that he had been retained by Carol. They had discussions about the extension of the Ex Parte Order on certain terms. No agreement was reached. On May 13, 2024, Mr. Graham advised Mr. McPhadden that Carol wanted the Application dismissed and the Ex Parte Order vacated immediately. Mr. McPhadden states that this position took him by surprise given earlier statements. As a result and having filed no materials to support the extension request, he commenced preparing affidavits on May 13, 2024 for the hearing on the following day.

[38] In her affidavit dated May 14, 2014, Lesley states that she determined from an internet search that Gideon has a girlfriend named Peyton Ellinger. On May 1, 2024, Peyton confirmed that Gideon is her boyfriend and that she has been living with him for a number of years and currently resides with him in his home in Fort Myers, she was suspicious of his behaviour as he would be gone for long periods of time and would not share his location with her. Peyton’s mother, Susan Ellinger, told Mr. McPhadden that Peyton has been dating Gideon for three or four years. He sent her a copy of the marriage certificate.

[39] After repeatedly attempting to contact Peyton and Susan, Mr. McPhadden received an email dated May 7, 2024, which states:

Our family is more shocked over this situation than you can imagine. I have spoken with our family attorney. Please do not contact Peyton or me. All communication needs to be directed to our attorney, Frederick J. Getty …Respectfully, Susan.

[40] On May 11, 2024, Lesley received the following email message sent from Peyton’s email address:

Hi Lesley –

I’ve been dealing with some health issues and that is why I haven’t been able to talk. I talked to Gideon recently and honestly, he is not the kind of man that you are portraying him as in the court documents. He is not, nor would he ever try to con or scam any one of their money as evident by his prestigious job. He has provided great care to his patients here in Fort Myers and I don’t think that it’s fair to assassinate his character the way it’s been described in the court documents.

I was a little upset when I heard of his marriage to your mother, but that was his decision and all the best of luck to him if it makes him happy. I may not respond to you in a timely manner and that is because I am dealing with some health issues.

[41] Lesley believes that the above email was sent by Gideon. Lesley states that she is concerned that Peyton and Gideon are acting together to deprive Carol of her assets. Lesley has contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigations.

[42] By Endorsement dated May 21, 2024, I declined to extend the Ex Parte Order. The Endorsement states:

8. On Carol’s behalf, Mr. Graham submits that: a. The Applicant not only failed to serve Carol, but she did also not even try. The Applicant had Carol’s mailing, text, WhatsApp and email contact information but disclosed no effort to serve, notify or warn Carol of the Orders that she intended to seek. b. There is no medical evidence that Carol is incapable. c. Justice Gilmore found that there is “insufficient evidence of incapacity to grant the broad Orders sought”. d. The preservation order puts Carol’s imminent purchase of a new home in Florida in jeopardy. e. The Applicant has commenced a proceeding for similar relief in Florida.

9. The Applicant did not file a Factum despite being specifically ordered to do so. The relief sought is extraordinary. The legal grounds for such relief, along with the evidence and reasoning to support such relief, has not been adequately explained. The Applicant had 12 days since the issuance of the Justice Gilmore’s Order to deliver additional materials, and at least the ordered materials, and failed to do so.

10. In all of the circumstances, I decline to extend the Order granted on May 2, 2024. This decision is without prejudice to the Applicant bringing a further motion for a further preservation order or other relief with better materials, including those materials ordered by Justice Gilmore.

11. At the conclusion of the hearing on May 14, 2024, I advised the parties of my decision not to extent the Order and indicated that this Endorsement would follow.

Petition in the State of Florida for Determination of Incapacity and Temporary Guardian

[43] As noted below, the Applicant filed a petition for determination of incapacity and a petition for appointment of an emergency temporary guardian in Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County, Florida.

[44] The Applicant states that on May 14, 2024, a lawyer was appointed to represent Carol in these proceedings. Three capacity assessors have been appointed by the Court. An initial 15‑minute hearing is scheduled for May 16, 2024. A further hearing is scheduled for June 27, 2024, at which time the reports of the three capacity assessors are due to be completed. No materials from the above proceedings have been filed.

Petition in the State of Florida for an Injunction for Protection Against Exploitation of a Vulnerable Adult

[45] The Applicant’s affidavit sworn May 31, 2024, attaches a copy of the Petitition, excluding exhibits, that she filed on May 22, 2024, in the Lee County Circuit Court. The Petition was made pursuant to Section 825.1035, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner is the Applicant on behalf of Carol Fern James. Gideon is the sole Respondent.

[46] The Petition, in part, states:

2. Section 825.101(14), Florida Statutes, provides that a vulnerable adult.is a person whose ability to perform the normal activities of daily living or to provide for his or her own care or protection is impaired due to a mental, emotional, sensory, long-term physical, or developmental disability or dysfunction, or brain damage, or the infirmities of aging. The Vulnerable Adult has the following impairments, observed by the Petitioner and her sister, that impact her ability to perform normal activities of daily living or to provide for her own care and protection:

A. She is 79 years old and suffers from the infirmities of aging, B. Emotional disability including social isolation, extreme loneliness, and heightened susceptibility to those who can provide companionship, and C. Cognitive issues including memory and decision-making impairment. Fails to recollect some events, forgets names and struggles with recall and confabulation.

3. The Petitioner, age 55, is the Vulnerable Adult’s daughter. Petitioner has the right to bring the petition pursuant to Section 825.1035(2)(A)(50, Florida Statutes, because she is a person who has simultaneously filed a petition for determination of incapacity filed in Lee County Circuit Court case number 24-MH-1201, and a petition for appointment of an emergency temporary guardian filed in Lee County Circuit Court case number 24-GA-148 with respect to the Vulnerable Adult.

Additionally, Petitioner was the agent for the Vulnerable Adult pursuant to the Vulnerable Adult’s Durable Power of Attorney executed on April 28, 2019. … However, in May 2024, Petitioner received a Revocation of Power of Attorney for Property purportedly dated April 29, 2024 … .

8. The respondent is associated with the vulnerable adult because he is the Vulnerable Adult’s Pharmacist. Upon information and belief, Respondent initiated a friendship with the Vulnerable Adult in late February while the Vulnerable Adult was visiting the Publix Supermarket Pharmacy where Respondent attended as her Pharmacist and has since intensified and escalated the relationship. …

9. The Petitioner knows or has reasonable cause to believe the Vulnerable Adult is either a victim of exploitation or is in imminent danger of becoming a victim of exploitation because the Respondent has caused incidents or made the following threats of exploitation …

(A) Rapidly Advancing Relationship. The Vulnerable Adult has entered into an uncharacteristically quick and reckless relationship with the Respondent, a man that, as of three months ago, was a stranger. … (B) Familial Isolation. The Vulnerable Adult has always maintained a close and loving relationship with her family. … However, in the wake of her discovery of her relationship with the Respondent, the Vulnerable Adult began to isolate herself and has become estranged from family members. … (C) Erratic Decision Making. The Vulnerable Adult had always keenly managed her finances and assets. The Vulnerable Adult made previous arrangements for the distribution of her estate and lived a life well below her means. However, in recent months, the Vulnerable Adult has begun to make … erratic and reckless decisions concerning her assets and their distribution. …

Temporary Injunction – Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Court in and for Lee County, Florida – May 23, 2024

[47] On May 23, 2024, a temporary injunction was granted without notice in respect of the petition filed one day earlier (“the Temporary Exploitation Injunction”). Amongst other things, it prohibits Gideon from having any contact with Carol. It further states:

SECTION I. NOTICE OF HEARING

Because this Temporary Injunction for Protection Against Exploitation of a Vulnerable Adult has been issued without prior notice to Respondent, the Petitioner and Respondent are instructed that they are scheduled to appear and testify at a hearing regarding this matter on May 24, 2024 at 9:00 AM., when the Court will consider whether to issue a Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection Against Exploitation of a Vulnerable Adult, which would remain in effect until modified or dissolved by the Court. …

SECTION II. FINDINGS

The statements made under oath by Petitioner make it appear that Section 825.1035, Florida Statutes, applies. It also appears that an immediate and present danger of exploitation of the Vulnerable Adult exists. There is a likel1hood of irreparable harm and non-availability of an adequate remedy at law. There is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. The threatened injury to the Vulnerable Adult outweighs possible harm to the Respondent. Granting a temporary injunction will not disserve the public interest. This temporary injunction provides for the Vulnerable Adult's physical or financial safety.

SECTION III. TEMPORARY INJUNCTIONS AND TERMS

This injunction shall be effective until the hearing set above and in no event for longer than 15 days, unless extended by court order. If a final order of injunction is issued, the terms of this temporary injunction will be extended until service of the final injunction is effected upon Respondent. This injunction is valid and enforceable in all counties of the State of Florida. …

A person may violate such injunction by:

1. Refusing to vacate the dwelling shared with the Vulnerable Adult if ordered to do so by the injunction: 8945 Bristol Bend, Lexington Country Club, Fort Myers, FL
2. Going to or being within 500 feet of the Vulnerable Adult’s residence if ordered to stay away: 8945 Bristol Bend, Lexington Country Club, Fort Myers, FL
3. Exploiting or unduly influencing the Vulnerable Adult
4. Committing any other violation of the injunction through an intentional unlawful threat, word, or act to do violence to the Vulnerable Adult
5. Telephoning, contacting, or otherwise communicating with the Vulnerable Adult directly or indirectly, unless the injunction specifically allows indirect contact through a third party. …

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: This is an Injunction for Protection Against Exploitation of a Vulnerable Adult. The person identified as a Vulnerable Adult herein is Carol Fern James, and references herein to the Vulnerable Adult are to Carol Fern James.

l. Exploitation Prohibited. Respondent shall not commit, or cause any other person to commit, any acts of Exploitation, as defined in Section 825.103(1), Fla. Stat., of the Vulnerable Adult. Respondent shall not commit any other violation of the injunction through an intentional unlawful threat, word or act against the Vulnerable Adult.

2. Provisions concerning the home. (Initial the following paragraphs if they apply)

✔ Possession of the Home. The Vulnerable Adult and NOT the Respondent shall have temporary possession of the home or other dwelling (hereafter "home") located at: 8945 Bristol Bend, Lexington Country Club, Fort Myers, FL ✔ Transfer of Possession of the Home. A law enforcement officer with jurisdiction over the home shall place the Vulnerable. Adult in possession of the home, accompanying the Vulnerable Adult to the home for that purpose, if requested. ✔ Personal Items. Respondent, in the presence of a law enforcement officer, may return to the home at a time arranged with the law enforcement department with jurisdiction over the home, for the purpose of obtaining his or her clothing and items of personal health and hygiene and tools of the trade. … ✔ Damage or removal: Respondent shall not damage or remove any furnishings or fixtures from the parties’ former shared premises.

3. Other provisions contact. (Initial the following paragraphs if they apply)

✔ Unless otherwise provided herein, Respondent shall have no contact with the Vulnerable Adult. Respondent shall not directly or indirectly contact the Vulnerable Adult in person, by mail, e-mail, fax, telephone; through another person, or in any other manner. Further, Respondent shall not contact or have any third-party contact with anyone connected with the Vulnerable Adult's employment or school to inquire about the Vulnerable Adult Orto send any messages to the Vulnerable Adult. Unless otherwise provided herein, Respondent shall not go to, in, or within 500 feet of the home of the Vulnerable Adult, the current or any subsequent place of employment of the Vulnerable Adult or the following other places (if requested in the Petition) where the Vulnerable Adult goes often: ✔ Respondent may not knowingly come within 100 feet of the Vulnerable Adult's automobile ,at any time whether or. not it is occupied.

4. Provisions concerning assets. (Initial the following paragraphs if they apply)

✔ The Respondent will have no access to the following described assets of the Vulnerable. Adult held at TD Wealth Private Investment Advice Accounts. 66 Wellington St. West, 36th Floor, Toronto, ON M5K 1A2, Canada … even if titled jointly with the Respondent, or in the Respondent’s name only. ✔ The following described assets of the Vulnerable Adult held at TD Wealth Private Investment Advice Accounts, 66 Wellington St. West, 36'h Floor, Toronto, ON MSK 1A2, Canada name and address of depository or financial institution) even if titled jointly with the Respondent, or in the Respondent's name only, are hereby frozen. _ 7 AXY80A/B; 7AXY84A/B; 7FLC83J/K; 8E0058T; 8EG77A/B; 8T8300E; 17902-6218896 and 19882-7129198 …

Temporary Order – Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Court in and for Lee County, Florida – May 24, 2024

[48] The Applicant states that on May 24, 2024, the Temporary Exploitation Injunction was extended to June 5, 2024.

Motion – June 3, 2024

[49] On May 31, 2024, the Applicant brought an urgent motion, which is the subject of this Endorsement, for the following relief:

1. An order restraining the respondent Carol or any other person from transferring, using, spending, dissipating, or otherwise disposing of any personal or real property of Carol.
2. An order pending further order of this Court that Carol and, anyone else served with the Order sought be restrained from transferring, assigning, mortgaging or otherwise encumbering Carol’s Toronto home.
3. An order, pending further order of this Court, that Carol’s Power of Attorney for Property, dated April 28, 2019, remains in full force and effect.
4. An interim order that the Power of Attorney for Property Revocation, dated April 29, 2024 is of no force or effect.
5. An interim order that Carol’s Power of Attorney for Personal Care, dated April 28, 2019 remains in full force and effect.
6. An interim order, pending further order of this Court, that any Power of Attorney for Personal Care, other than the said Power of Attorney for Personal Care, dated April 28, 2019, is of no force and effect.
7. An order that Carol’s accounts at TD Canada Trust and TD Private Investment Advice be preserved.
8. An order that the respondent Carol have access to such funds necessary for reasonable living expenses.
9. An order that Carol not transfer, assign, mortgage or otherwise encumber her interest in her Florida home.
10. An order that this court request the assistance of the Court of the 20th Circuit of Florida to give effect to the Order granted on this motion in respect of Carol’s property in Florida.
11. An order, if sought, that the Applicant’s costs for this motion be paid out of the property of Carol.
12. Leave to bring this motion on short notice

[50] The Notice of Motion describes the grounds for the motion as follows:

1. There are indications of the respondent Carol being subject to undue influence by Gideon since February 29, 2024.
2. There are indications of Carol presently suffering from capacity issues.
3. There is a reasonable issue to be determined on the application
4. There is a risk of irreparable harm if the injunctive relief sought is not granted.
5. The balance of convenience favour the relief sought by the applicant on Carol’s behalf.

[51] The Applicant states that Mr. McPhadden received an email on May 2, 2024 from her mother’s email address which attached a copy of her marriage record, noted above, and a copy of a document, dated April 29, 2024, that revokes Carol’s Power of Attorney for Property dated April 28, 2019. Given its language, the Applicant believes that the email was written by Gideon. The email ends with “be cool”.

[52] On May 15, 2024, the Applicant learned that Carol and Gideon were staying at Carol’s home in Toronto. She believes that the purpose of the visit was to sell her home and car.

The Applicant’s Position

[53] The Applicant submits that an interlocutory injunction should be granted on the grounds that Carol lacks capacity and, alternatively, on the basis that there is evidence of undue influence.

Carol’s Position

[54] In her affidavit sworn May 31, 2024, Carol summarizes her position on this motion as follows:

The Applicant seeks to be appointed to make property and personal care decisions for me. I am making those decisions myself. I have no need of assistance. I was doing just fine until my bank TD betrayed my confidence and told the Applicant my personal information behind my back and without my permission. Then on May 2, 2024, the Applicant and her lawyer convinced the Court to freeze substantially all my assets without any notice to me. The Applicant and her lawyer knew all my contact information but deliberately chose not to give me notice.

The Applicant, her lawyer, my daughter Lesley James who is in league with the Applicant and the Court for that matter, should all mind their own business, stay out of my decisions and do whatever is necessary to stop the damage they are all doing to me on a day-to-day basis. As things stand, the significant dangers to me are posed by: the Court which froze all my assets without notice to me; TD, which refuses to allow me to do what I want with my property; and the Applicant, who is relentlessly harassing me and my husband Gideon Amofa.

Analysis

[55] A person seeking an interlocutory injunction must establish that:

(a) The application raises a “serious question” to be tried. (b) The applicant will suffer irreparable harm if the interlocutory injunction is refused. (c) The balance of convenience favours the granting of an interlocutory injunction: see R. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., 2018 SCC 5, [2018] 1 S.C.R. 196, at para. 12.

[56] An applicant must have standing, either private interest or public interest standing, to bring an application for an interlocutory injunction: Sorenson v. Swinemar, 2020 NSCA 62, at paras. 103-112.

[57] The purpose of an interlocutory injunction was explained by the Privy Council in National Commercial Bank Jamaica Ltd. v. Olint Corpn Ltd., [2009] 1 W.L.R. 1405, at paras. 16-17, as follows:

It is often said that the purpose of an interlocutory injunction is to preserve the status quo, but it is of course impossible to stop the world pending trial. The court may order a defendant to do something or not to do something else, but such restrictions on the defendant's freedom of action will have consequences, for him and for others, which a court has to take into account. The purpose of such an injunction is to improve the chances of the court being able to do justice after a determination of the merits at the trial. At the interlocutory stage, the court must therefore assess whether granting or withholding an injunction is more likely to produce a just result. As the House of Lords pointed out in American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd, [1975] AC 396, that means that if damages will be an adequate remedy for the plaintiff, there are no grounds for interference with the defendant's freedom of action by the grant of an injunction. Likewise, if there is a serious issue to be tried and the plaintiff could be prejudiced by the acts or omissions of the defendant pending trial and the cross‑undertaking in damages would provide the defendant with an adequate remedy if it turns out that his freedom of action should not have been restrained, then an injunction should ordinarily be granted.

In practice, however, it is often hard to tell whether either damages or the cross‑undertaking will be an adequate remedy and the court has to engage in trying to predict whether granting or withholding an injunction is more or less likely to cause irremediable prejudice (and to what extent) if it turns out that the injunction should not have been granted or withheld, as the case may be. The basic principle is that the court should take whichever course seems likely to cause the least irremediable prejudice to one party or the other. [Emphasis added]

Has the Applicant Established a Serious Issue to be Tried on the Merits?

[58] The general rule is that the court shall “… undertake a preliminary investigation of the merits to decide whether the applicant demonstrates a ‘serious question to be tried’, in the sense that the application is neither frivolous nor vexatious”: R. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., at para. 14.

[59] A prolonged examination of the merits is neither necessary nor desirable unless: (a) the result of the motion will in effect amount to a final determination of the action; or (b) the question of constitutionality presents itself as a simple question of law alone: RJR — MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311, at pp. 338-340.

[60] If an applicant is seeking a mandatory interlocutory injunction, in that the applicant is seeking an order that effectively requires the respondent to do something as opposed to refrain from doing something, then the applicant must satisfy the higher standard of a strong prima facie case rather than a serious question to be tried: R. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., at paras. 15-18.

[61] In this case, the relief sought does not call for a departure from the general rule that a “serious question to be tried” must be demonstrated or that such determination must be based on a preliminary investigation of the merits.

[62] On this motion, the Applicant submits that Carol lacks capacity for the important decisions that she had made and that she has been subject to undue influence by Gideon in respect of those decisions.

Carol’s Capacity

[63] The Applicant asserts that that the requested interlocutory injunction should be granted because Carol is incapable of managing her property and incapable of making personal care decisions. As a consequence, she seeks to be appointed as Carol’s guardian for property and full guardian of the person.

[64] In Abrams v. Abrams, Strathy J., as he then was, described the nature of proceedings under the SDA as follows, at paras. 48-49:

48 … These proceedings are not a lis or private litigation in the traditional sense. The interests that these proceedings seek to balance are not the interest of litigants, but the interests of the person alleged to be incapable as against the interest and duty of the state to protect the vulnerable.

49 The SDA contains a number of provisions that indicate that the dignity, privacy and legal rights of the individual are to be assiduously protected. For example:

(a) there is a presumption of capacity (section 2); (b) a person whose capacity is in issue is entitled to legal representation (section 3); (c) a person alleged to be incapable is entitled to notice of the proceedings (ss. 27(4) and ss. 62(4)); (d) the court must not appoint a guardian if it is satisfied that the need for decisions to be made can be met by an alternative course of action that is less restrictive of the person's decision-making rights (ss. 22(3) and ss. 55(2)); (e) in considering the choice of guardian for property or personal care, the court is to consider the wishes of the incapable person (cl. 24(5)(b) and cl. 57(3)(b)); (f) subject to exceptions, a person has a right to refuse an assessment, other than an assessment ordered by the court (section 78).

[65] The test for incapacity to manage property is outlined in section 6 of the SDA:

A person is incapable of managing property if the person is not able to understand information that is relevant to making a decision in the management of his or her property, or is not able to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a decision or lack of decision.

[66] The test for incapacity to manage personal care is outlined in section 45 of the SDA:

A person is incapable of personal care if the person is not able to understand information that is relevant to making a decision concerning his or her own health care, nutrition, shelter, clothing, hygiene or safety, or is not able to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a decision or lack of decision.

[67] In F.L. v. Oliver, 2024 ONSC 478, Perell J. summarized the law surrounding the determination of incapacity as follows, at paras. 85-87:

85 The test for capacity was established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Starson v. Swayze, 2003 SCC 32, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 722. Capacity involves two criteria. First, a person must be able to understand the information that is relevant to making a decision. This requires the cognitive ability to process, retain and understand the relevant information. Second, a person must be able to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the decision or lack of one. This second standard requires the person to be able to apply the relevant information to his or her circumstances, and to be able to weigh the foreseeable risks and benefits of a decision or lack thereof. The ability to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a decision or lack of decision includes an ability to recognize whether one's condition renders the person unable to apply the relevant information and appreciate the consequences of his or her decision.

86 The ability to appreciate consequences involves more than a mere understanding of the relevant information and requires that the person have some ability to evaluate the information to appreciate the consequences of making or not making a decision. Indicators of a person's ability to appreciate consequences are: (a) acknowledgement that the decision will have consequences to him or her; (b) appreciation of how the decision will have consequences; and (c) the absence of delusional beliefs.

87 An incapacity assessment is based solely on the person's capacity, and a consideration of what might be in the best interests of the person alleged to be incapable of managing his or her property is not a relevant consideration. A competent person is not incompetent because he or she makes decisions that a reasonable person would consider foolish or not in the person's best interests. [Footnotes omitted; emphasis added.]

[68] In respect of this last point, in Starson, at para. 76, Major J., stated:

The legislative mandate of the Board is to adjudicate solely upon a patient’s capacity. The Board’s conception of the patient’s best interests is irrelevant to that determination. As the reviewing judge observed, “[a] competent patient has the absolute entitlement to make decisions that any reasonable person would deem foolish” (para. 13). This point was aptly stated by Quinn J. in Koch (Re) (1997), 33 O.R. (3d) 485 (Gen. Div.), at p. 521:

The right knowingly to be foolish is not unimportant; the right to voluntarily assume risks is to be respected. The State has no business meddling with either. The dignity of the individual is at stake. [Emphasis added.]

[69] In Royal Bank of Canada v. FTVRB2 Inc., 2016 ONCA 73, the Ontario Court of Appeal stated, at paras. 18-19:

18. The law presumes capacity. Anyone alleging lack of capacity has the onus to prove it.

19. As this court noted in Barnes v. Kirk, [1968] 2 O.R. 213 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 6:

The party's unsoundness of mind constitutes such a valid reason, but the onus of establishing that fact rests squarely on the party alleging it. The question essentially is one to be decided upon medical evidence; without direct cogent evidence from a person duly qualified to speak with authority upon the subject, it is difficult to perceive how the Court could pass upon the question judicially.

[70] Similarly, in Royal Trust Corporation of Canada v. Haddad, 2023 ONSC 5637, at para. 19, Sanfilippo J. stated:

… There are instances where the Court has determined a party to be incapable in the absence of any medical or expert evidence, but the vast weight of the authority has held that medical evidence is required. In Winter v. Sherman Estate, the Court of Appeal explained:

A motion to appoint a litigation guardian affects both the personal interests of the individual whose ability to make decisions in a proceeding are affected, and the administration of justice. On such a motion, it is important that those who are concerned about a person's capacity to participate in litigation and/or to instruct counsel are able to bring forward appropriate information for the court's consideration. The issue to be determined is the person's capacity at the time the order is considered. And direct medical advice and information about a person's actual mental condition is key. [Citations omitted; emphasis added.]

[71] In support of her position that Carol’s lack of capacity to make property and personal care decisions raises a serious issue to be tried, the Applicant states that:

a) Carol has suddenly developed a close and questionable relationship with her pharmacist who is 47 years younger than her. b) Carol has expressed an intention to become a permanent resident or citizen of the United States. c) Carol is seeking legal counsel to change her Wills and Powers of Attorney that have been in place for more than ten years. d) Carol has suddenly and without rational reason entered into an agreement to buy another home in Bonita Springs, Florida, as she already owns a home in Fort Myers, Florida. e) Carol is lying about or failing to remember who suggested to her that she purchase a home in Bonita Springs. Carol’s neighbours in Fort Myers, Florida are elderly and are not likely to make the trip to Florida with the result that Carol would be more isolated. Her neighbours do not endorse Carol’s decisions. f) Carol is not supported by her sister, the Respondent Jeannie Andrew (“Jeannie”) in the decisions that she has recently made. g) Carol ceased all communications with her two children with whom she was in frequent contact until recently. h) Carol has suddenly stopped communicating with her grandchildren in the same way as before.

[72] There is neither a capacity assessment nor any other medical evidence to support the view that Carol lacks capacity within the meanings of sections 6 and 45 of the SDA. The concerns expressed focus on the reasonableness of Carol’s recent decisions and not on her ability to understand information that is relevant to making a decision in respect of the management of her property or in respect of her personal care, nor on whether Carol is not able to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a decision or lack of decision.

[73] On the evidence adduced, the Application does not raise a serious issue to be tried on its merits.

[74] Finally, the Applicant’s reliance on the Temporary Exploitation Injunction granted in Florida as support for the issuance of an injunction by this court in this guardianship proceeding is misguided for two reasons: (1) the Temporary Exploitation Injunction was not granted in the guardianship proceeding in Florida; (2) the Temporary Exploitation Injunction was granted based on a Florida statute and no similar statute exists in Ontario, although the Legislature may wish to consider expanding the tool box for addressing elder abuse in Ontario. A summary description of that statute prepared by the Elder Law Section of the Florida Bar is outlined in Schedule “A”.

Undue Influence

[75] The Applicant submits that Carol has been subject to subject to undue influence by Gideon. She relies on the same concerns described above including the concern that if Carol has recently executed a new Power of Attorney naming Gideon as her attorney, this will mean that the very person exerting undue influence over Carol will have entirely unfettered access to all of Carol’s’ property, including Carol’s liquid assets in bank accounts and investment accounts which form the bulk of Carol’s assets.

[76] There are no cases where the question of undue influence was determined while the grantor of a power of attorney was both alive and capable: Palichuk v. Palichuk, 2023 ONCA 116. In that case, a 90 year old mother signed a Will which disinherited her daughter, signed powers of attorney for property and care which removed that same daughter as an attorney and appointed another daughter as sole attorney; and signed a transfer and a declaration of trust that transferred her to the second daughter as bare trustee for the mother. The disinherited daughter sought to have the instruments set aside on the grounds of undue influence. At para. 76, Trotter J.A. stated:

As for the powers of attorney, again the question of undue influence is premature. Counsel did not point us to any existing cases in which the question of undue influence was determined while the grantor was both alive and capable. The two cases referred to in Linda's factum to suggest that the court may consider undue influence to undermine the validity of a document or transfer in the face of capacity: Geffen v. Goodman Estate, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 353 and O'Meara v. Miller, 2021 ONSC 5919, both involved estate disputes after the grantor's death. There is nothing on the facts of this case that would suggest expanding the law.

[77] In my view, given that she is alive and does not lack capacity, Carol is the only person that has standing to assert that she has been unduly influenced in relation to any transactions that she had made.

[78] The cases relied on by the Applicant involve cases where the person who allegedly has been subject to undue influence is dead or lacks capacity. For instance, in Waters Estate v. Henry, 2022 ONSC 5485, the Estate Trustees discovered that the deceased had transferred about $29 million over a period of two years to his spouse’s personal support worker and a Mareva Injunction was granted to freeze the personal support worker’s worldwide assets.

Decision

[79] The Applicant’s motion for an interim injunction is dismissed. Carol shall deliver her costs submissions by July 17, 2024. The Applicant shall deliver her costs submissions by July 24, 2024. If she wishes, Carol may deliver reply submission by July 31, 2024. Maximum of three pages for each submission excluding an outline of costs and any offers to settle.

Mr. Justice M. D. Faieta

Released: July 10, 2024 Corrected Endorsement Released: August 2, 2024

Schedule “A”

Summary - Injunction for Protection from Exploitation/ Asset Protection Vulnerable Adults

Prepared by the Elder Law Section of the Florida Bar – 2018

Prior to implementation of this important legislation, there have been a variety of problems in preventing the loss of assets of a Vulnerable Adult subjected to exploitation:

• There was no process through which Vulnerable Adults or their loved ones/helpers could quickly prevent assets from being dissipated, without the necessity of hiring an attorney and a long, expensive process.
• In contrast, Florida has had a long-standing process for injunctions for domestic violence that protects citizens from violent perpetrators.
• Vulnerable Adults, meaning those with disabilities or cognitive deficits due to advanced age, often find themselves victims of asset dissipation by exploiters, who are able to obtain assets and disappear without time for sufficient judicial intervention to prevent the loss of assets. Sometimes ALL the victim’s savings are taken without any recourse to the Vulnerable Adult.
• Under this new Injunction Statute, using the current framework established by Florida Statute 741 for injunctions against domestic violence, a circuit court can provide a process for “stopping the bleed” of assets in cases where Vulnerable Adults are being victimized. The proposed changes to Fla. Stat. §825.103, provide a process, without notice to the exploiter, for the temporary freezing of assets to stop exploiters from preying upon our most vulnerable citizens.
• Incapacity is not a requirement for proceeding under this new statute. The statute also provides the Court the ability to require the exploiter not to contact the victim, directly or indirectly while the matter is proceeding.
• The new statute, effective July 1, 2018, creates a quick and inexpensive method for those Vulnerable Adults, or their helpers to protect the Vulnerable Adults’ assets.
• The statute further provides options for the Court to provide for essential maintenance expenses to be paid for the benefit of the Vulnerable adult during the asset freeze process.
• Once a temporary injunction is ordered, there are options for extending the asset freeze after a full hearing, or for the return of funds to the victim at the final hearing on the matter.
• This injunction provides another tool to stop exploitation and undue influence of seniors and those with disabilities. Once again, Florida is at the forefront of protecting our most vulnerable citizens from exploitation, and become a model for other states to follow. There is no comparable process anywhere in the United States.