COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-1090 DATE: 20181211 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

In the matter of the Estate of the late JOSEPH EDMOND BEAULIEU Between ROGER CARDINAL, in his capacity as Testamentary Trustee Applicant

C. Pilon, for the Applicant

• and -

GINETTE PERREAULT, in her capacity as Testamentary Trustee and attorney for property, ROGER DANIEL GOSSELIN and BENOIT CARDINAL Respondents

R. Dean Allison, Lawyer for the Respondent, Ginette Perrault

HEARD: August 8, 2017 July 6, 2018

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

TZIMAS J

INTRODUCTION

[1] Ginette Perreault, brought an application to pass her accounts for the time period January 28, 2008 to June 27, 2015, during which she was estate trustee and had a Power of Attorney for the care and property of Joseph Edmond Beaulieu (“Edmond”). The value of Edmond’s estate as of the date of his death on June 27, 2017 was $339,312.68.

[2] The Application was brought further to the court order of April 26, 2016, which was on the consent of the parties. Mr. Roger Cardinal raised a number of objections that related to both Mrs. Perreault’s conduct as estate trustee and as attorney for Mr. Beaulieu. The hearing proceeded in a blended manner.

[3] The essence of Mr. Cardinal’s objections comes down to the view that Mrs. Perreault breached her obligations as fiduciary, that her actions were not transparent, that she acted in bad faith, and that the time she claimed on account of her time spent both in relation to Edmond’s estate and his care was exorbitant and amounted to the misappropriation of Edmond’s funds. Mr. Cardinal requested an order that significant sums already paid to Mrs. Perreault either be repaid to the estate or deducted from her beneficial entitlement.

[4] Mrs. Perreault took strong exception to each and every one of Mr. Cardinal’s objections. She explained her actions to the best of her abilities. Above all, she offered a detailed review of her extensive efforts to care for Edmond and to manage his estate. She said that she responded to all the various needs and obligations in the best way that she could. She did that over a period of 7.5 years. In contrast to her efforts, Mrs. Perreault submitted that Mr. Cardinal did not concern himself with either Edmond’s well-being or his estate. Apart from one brief visit to Edmond’s house, after Edmond passed, during which Mrs. Perreault and her husband were cleaning out what was a ‘hoarder’s paradise’, Mr. Cardinal did not raise any concerns whatsoever about the Perreaults’ actions. Nor did he offer to assist with the clean-up underway.

[5] In my review of the evidence, the applicable legislation, the submissions of the parties and being mindful of the court’s inherent discretion, I have come to the conclusion that Mrs. Perreault acted honestly and with humanity, she was transparent in her conduct, and she demonstrated the ordinary prudence, perhaps to a fault, that she would exercise in the management of her own affairs. She recognized her limitations and sought and obtained the guidance of counsel at all times. Although she made certain errors and most particularly, did not maintain her records in a thorough and organized manner, having regard for her limited education and capacity, I conclude that she did the very best that she could. Her efforts were especially important given the monumental task of having to clear out a home that was packed floor to ceiling with boxes, garbage, piles and piles of stuff, overrun by animals and facing a contravention notice and Order from the City of Mississauga, which included as a possibility the demolition of the home if it were not cleaned and maintained.

[6] In addition to those efforts, in the seven and a half years following the passing of Edmond’s wife, Rita, she and her husband took care of all of Edmond’s needs. Mr. and Mrs. Perreault were the only ones to visit Edmond regularly at the nursing home, to take him out periodically and to treat him like family. This was especially laudable given that Edmond did not have anyone else to visit him and that the relatives he did have were distant and living in Quebec.

[7] Against such a backdrop, even with certain shortcomings, which I address below, I have come to the following conclusions:

a) Mrs. Perreault’s claim of $43,000 to clean Edmond’s house was not a management fee. It was a cleaning fee on account of her and her husband’s efforts.

b) Mrs. Perrault’s conduct is to be evaluated against the standard of a person of ordinary prudence, in accordance with section 32(7) of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, chap. 30.

c) In light of all the circumstances, the sum of $43,000 for the clean-up costs is allowed.

d) I find nothing wrong with the payment of $13,000 out of Edmond’s funds on account of Rita’s debts.

e) There is nothing objectionable with the advance payment of $10,000 to the nephew, Roger Daniel Gosselin, particularly given the release that was obtained from Mr. Gosselin on account of that payment and the disclosure of that payment in the reporting letter of October 14, 2008, which was sent to Mr. Cardinal.

f) Regarding the Revenue Disbursements claimed, in accordance with the submission of Mrs. Perreault’s counsel, and on account of the various difficulties with the accounting it is appropriate that the sum claimed be reduced from $27,940.18 to $21,940.18.

g) It is inappropriate for Ms. Perreault to claim the management fee of $14,181.47, as she did not undertake any extraordinary management efforts in relation to Edmond’s estate.

BACKGROUND FACTS

[8] Joseph Edmond Beaulieu, (Edmond), and Rita Beaulieu, (Rita), were married for more than 50 years before Rita’s passing on May 16, 2000. Edmond died on June 27, 2015.

[9] Edmond and Rita had mirror wills. Rita’s Last Will and Testament appointed Edmond as her Estate Trustee. In the alternative, if Edmond were unable or unwilling to act, she appointed Roger Cardinal (“Mr. Cardinal”) and Ginette Perreault, (“Mrs. Perreault”), to act as joint Estate Trustees. Similarly, Edmond appointed Rita as his Estate Trustee and in the alternative, he appointed Mr. Cardinal and Mrs. Perreault to act as joint Estate Trustees.

[10] Rita appointed Mrs. Perreault “and / or” Benoit Cardinal, (Mr. Cardinal’s son), as her Personal Care Power of Attorney. Edmond did the same. According to Mrs. Perreault, Edmond and Rita asked her to be present when they signed their Powers of Attorney at the office of Erven W. Greenslade of the firm Bowyer, Greenslade, Webster, Allison.

[11] Also according to Mrs. Perreault, Rita and Edmond advised her that Mrs. Perreault would continue to be their attorney if they continued to reside in the Mississauga / Brampton area but that Benoit Cardinal, would take over if they moved to Ottawa. Mr. Cardinal challenged the admissibility of this particular evidence as hearsay. He disagreed with the contention and said that it could not be verified.

[12] The Beaulieus did not move to Ottawa. After Rita’s death in January 2008, Mrs. Perreault took over the management of Edmond’s affairs until June 27, 2015 when he passed away.

[13] Mrs. Perreault confirmed in her cross-examination that she did not make any efforts to contact Benoit Cardinal about Edmond’s care. Benoit is also one of the beneficiaries of Edmond’s will but he did not participate in any part of these proceedings. In her affidavit, Mrs. Perreault said that she did not have an address for Benoit. In any event, she operated on the understanding that since Rita and Edmond were living in Mississauga, she would be the one who would take care of Edmond’s needs. Consistent with that understanding it was not contested that Mr. Cardinal divided his time between Ottawa and Texas. He did not live anywhere near Edmond.

[14] It was not disputed that the last time Roger Cardinal saw Rita and Edmond was at a wedding in 2000. According to Mrs. Perreault, she advised Mr. Cardinal of Rita’s passing. There was no evidence that Mr. Cardinal took any interest at all in the well-being of either Rita or Edmond.

[15] Soon after Rita’s death, Mr. Erven Greenslade, of Bowyer, Greenslade, Webster, Allison, (BGWA), who has since passed away, wrote to Mr. Cardinal on February 26, 2008, to advise him that in light of Edmond’s incapacity and inability to administer Rita’s estate, he and Mrs. Perreault would be appointed as alternate estate trustees. He also reported on Mrs. Perreault’s activities with respect to the matrimonial home and the need to clean the property of the “substantial garbage” and he confirmed that she would be claiming the time for her and her husband’s services against the estate.

[16] The primary asset for the Beaulieus was their home, located at 3178 Newbound Court, in Mississauga. Following Rita’s passing Mrs. Perreault cleaned up the home and prepared it for sale.

[17] Mr. Cardinal attended at the offices of BGWA in May 2008 and signed certain directions to allow for counsel’s work on the management of Rita’s estate. He also visited Mrs. Perreault at Rita’s and Edmond’s matrimonial home, which Mrs. Perreault and her husband were in the process of cleaning. Mr. Cardinal did not visit Edmond who at the time was living in a nursing home. Edmond had been living in a nursing home since 2004.

[18] The matrimonial home was sold on October 3, 2008. Mr. Greenslade reported to Mr. Cardinal on its sale on October 14, 2008. That report included a Trust ledger that included a payment of $43,000 with the description: “Paid to Ginette Perreault as per direction”. On December 10, 2008, he also sent a letter that was addressed to Edmond, care of Mrs. Perreault, to report on the conclusion of the administration of the Estate of Rita and to render the corresponding account. This latter letter was not copied to Mr. Cardinal.

[19] Mrs. Perreault looked after Edmond’s affairs and needs until he died on June 27, 2015. She contacted Edmond’s younger brother, Rejean who looked after all of the funeral arrangements in Quebec.

[20] On July 9, 2015, almost seven years after the sale of the home, Mr. Cardinal wrote to counsel for Mrs. Perreault, and requested that various estate documents be sent to his own counsel for review. Several exchanges followed between counsel for the parties.

[21] On March 4, 2016 Mr. Cardinal commenced an Application, principally for the passing of accounts for the period of time that Mrs. Perreault acted as Power of Attorney for Edmond and for an accounting of the administration of the Estate of Rita Beaulieu. Mrs. Perreault consented to the order and brought her Application for the Passing of Accounts in May 2016. Roger Daniel Gosselin and Benoit Cardinal were named parties to Mr. Cardinal’s Application but they did not participate or file any Notice of Appearance and took no part in either Mr. Cardinal’s or Mrs. Perreault’s Application.

[22] Although there were various delays in the scheduling of the hearing, ultimately the Application that is the subject of this decision was argued in two parts. The Court heard submissions for one day on August 8, 2017. The parties could not conclude their submissions on that date and because of their own scheduling difficulties, they also could not continue on the following day. Having regard for the relatively small sums of money in dispute, the total sum of the estate, and the substantial legal costs incurred by both parties, I suggested that the parties consider the possibility of a settlement conference. Counsel for both parties seemed to be open to that suggestion and the application was adjourned. Many months later, counsel advised me that they did not wish to schedule a settlement conference and accordingly, the continuation of the hearing of the Application took place on July 6, 2018.

OBJECTIONS BY ROGER CARDINAL

[23] Mr. Cardinal raised a number of objections to Mrs. Perreault’s accounts but he reduced his objections at the hearing. In the discussion that follows I will review each objection separately and each of Mrs. Perreault’s responses. I will then continue with my analysis and findings.

A. $43,218.20: On account of the cleaning of Edmond’s house

i. Mr. Cardinal’s Objection :

[24] Mr. Cardinal challenged Mrs. Perreault’s claim of $43,218.20 to clean Edmond’s home as excessive, unreasonable and something to which Edmond would have never accepted. The claim represented 2,772 hours of work, at $15 / hour, over a period of nine months. Moreover, the cost claimed represented 12.5 per cent of the total value of the estate.

[25] Mr. Cardinal also submitted that by the time he visited the house, Mrs. Perreault had already spent 1,000 hours cleaning, but she never said anything about claiming her time from the estate. She kept a diary from which she then produced an accounting for the sum that she claimed but she did not keep that diary. In her cross-examination Mrs. Perreault admitted that her notes were not detailed and that she would not have particularized either the daily hours that she and her husband spent on the clean-up or the specific activities that the undertook.

[26] To illustrate the magnitude of Mrs. Perreault’s excessive clean-up activities and her corresponding claim, Mr. Cardinal highlighted the laundry activities, and in particular, Mrs. Perreault’s explanation that she spent hundreds of hours doing laundry and washing the Beaulieus’ linen and clothing, before she turned it all over to charity. In his view, Mrs. Perreault should have thrown everything out. Her efforts were excessive, amounted to a complete waste of time and reflected an exercise of very poor judgment.

[27] Ultimately, in Mr. Cardinal’s view, Mrs. Perreault had the onus to prove her claim and in that regard she failed miserably. Insofar as the pictures that documented the condition of the home before the clean-up was concerned, Mr. Cardinal questioned the date the pictures were taken and thought that the evidence was insufficient to support the sum claimed. He also questioned her capacity to undertake the cleaning given her indication in her affidavit of May 2016 that she was 70 years, old, suffering from diabetes and needed a walker.

[28] Counsel conceded that ultimately, it was not the $15 / hour that was the problem in the claim as was the number of hours that were claimed. He also conceded that in light of the work that was undertaken a more appropriate claim would be $5,000.

ii. Mrs. Perreault’s Response:

[29] Counsel for Mrs. Perreault conceded that Mrs. Perreault did not keep her diary and that in any event she did not particularize her activities in the kind of detail suggested by Mr. Cardinal’s counsel. He also conceded that the figure claimed, in the abstract, would come across as excessive until one confronted the magnitude of the task at hand.

[30] Relying on the photographs of the home, before, during and after the clean-up, counsel submitted that they spoke 1000 words since they captured the otherwise unbelievable condition of the property. He noted that there were animals living in the property, that there was animal excrement everywhere, that virtually every room was stacked to the ceiling with boxes, that the garage was full of debris, right up to the ceiling and that Mrs. Perreault and her husband worked diligently to clean up the property and get it up to standards. In addition, Mrs. Perreault found and replaced several stale-dated cheques, which totaled a sum of $7,000. She remitted those sums to the estate. Finally, she took care of the payment for various outstanding bills. Ultimately, counsel submitted that the clothes and linen were washed and given to Goodwill and the garbage went to the garbage.

[31] Counsel concluded that the compensation claimed ought not to be treated as compensation of a power of attorney; the impugned activities exceeded anything that an attorney would undertake or that he or she would claim. He described the reimbursement as the costs that were incurred to clean the house, and to prepare it for sale. The house would not have sold at all but for Mrs.reault’s efforts to clean it and put it up on the market. Nor would Mrs. Perreault been able to realize anywhere near the purchase price that was obtained were it not for her efforts to clean the place.

[32] Insofar as Mrs. Perreault’s failure to alert Mr. Cardinal of her intention to claim the time spent, counsel objected to that submission and drew the court’s attention to the letter that was sent to Mr. Cardinal by counsel advising him that Mrs. Perreault and her husband would be working at the house to clean it up and that they would also be claiming their time. In that letter, Mr. Greenslade invited Mr. Cardinal to raise any questions or concerns he might have but he did not. He highlighted the following specific paragraphs contained in counsel’s letter of February 26, 2008:

“Ginette Perreault has been working at the house with the assistance of her husband to attempt to clean the property of substantial garbage. It is necessary for her to go through each individual box very carefully since it is difficult to determine if there are valuables amongst this debris. So far she has found three stale dated cheques which we are attempting to validate.

She, of course, will have a claim for these services against the estate for her time as well as that of her husband, and I am not sure whether she will be rendering an account for the services through her Power of Attorney for services on behalf of Edmond, or in the estate.”

[33] Finally, counsel submitted that when considering the requirements of s. 32(7) and (8) of the SDA and its regulations, the court should take into account Mrs. Perreault’s relatively limited education and here lack of sophistication. Although he did not have any evidence for the court’s consideration, counsel also submitted that given the condition of the house, any professional cleaning efforts would have been upwards of $25,000.

B. Payments of Rita Beaulieu’s debts out of Edmond’s estate

i. Mr. Cardinal’s Position

[34] The sum in dispute is $13,059.00. Mr. Cardinal submitted that Mrs. Perreault used Edmond’s funds improperly and contrary to her obligations to pay the debts and bequests for Rita’s estate. The said sum consisted of funeral expenses for Rita and legal fees for estate advice that Mrs. Perreault obtained as Estate Trustee for Rita. At the time of her death, Rita’s estate had insufficient funds to cover her debts and expenses. Her primary asset was the family home which she held with Edmond as joint tenants such that the home automatically became Edmond’s asset.

[35] Counsel further submitted that when Mr. Greenslade alerted Mrs. Perreault that there were insufficient assets in Rita’s estate to satisfy her debts and obligations, Mrs. Perreault should not have made any payments out of Edmond’s estate. To the extent that a substantial portion of these fees were legal, counsel also submitted that Mrs. Perreault should not have incurred any legal costs given the insufficient funds.

iii. Mrs. Perreault’s position

[36] Counsel for Mrs. Perreault took exception to any suggestion that Mrs. Perreault misappropriated funds and otherwise breached her fiduciary obligations. Counsel agreed that Rita’s estate had debts and bequests and that there were insufficient funds in her estate to pay for those debts. But he went on to submit that at the time of Rita’s death, Rita had been Edmond’s wife for over 50 years. The two were separated because of their respective health issues and were living in separate nursing homes. Although there was no evidence before the court, counsel submitted that had Edmond been able, he would have personally paid for Rita’s funeral expenses and other debts, including the legal fees to obtain a Certificate of Appointment. Moreover, it was not until the expenses were incurred that Mr. Greenslade advised Mrs. Perreault of the state of Rita’s estate.

[37] Counsel added that Mrs. Perreault never received any compensation for acting as estate trustee for Rita’s estate. Nor was she ever compensated for looking after Rita’s banking and grocery shopping when Rita was still alive but unable to attend to those tasks. Counsel reminded the court that in Rita’s case, Mr. Cardinal was a co-executor of her estate. Although he was advised of Rita’s passing in a timely manner, he took no interest in its management. His involvement was limited to signing a direction to permit the opening of an estate account.

C. Payment of $10,000 to Daniel Roger Gosselin

i. Mr. Cardinal’s Objection

[38] The sum at issue related to the premature distribution of $10,000 to a nephew, Daniel Roger Gosselin. This bequest was provided for in both Rita and Edmond’s respective wills. Mr. Cardinal objected to the advance payment out of Edmond’s money when Edmond was still alive, even though he acknowledged that Mr. Gosselin signed a release in favour of Mrs. Perreault and Mr. Cardinal. Mr. Cardinal argued that Mrs. Perreault should have waited for Edmond to die before making such an advance payment. Part of Mr. Cardinal’s objection to this particular payment related to his observation that he had only learned in 2015 that the payment was made out of Edmond’s funds and not out of Rita’s estate.

ii. Mrs. Perreault’s Response

[39] Mrs. Perreault explained that she was acting on Rita’s wishes to pay the particular bequest to Mr. Gosselin prior to Edmond’s passing. In any event, given the mirror bequest in Edmond’s will, the payment would have been made at some point. Accordingly, the advance payment did not change anything with respect to the overall value of Edmond’s assets, which was more than enough to cover the costs of his care.

[40] Counsel conceded that Mrs. Perreault should have advised Mr. Cardinal of her intention to make the payout since he was a co-executor. However, counsel also challenged the submission that Mr. Cardinal knew nothing of this payment until after Edmond’s death in 2015. He referred the court to Mr. Greenslade’s Reporting letter of October 14, 2008, which included in the Ledger Statement a reference to the payment to Mr. Gosselin of $10,000 out of the proceeds of the sale of the home. The Ledger clearly noted the Vendor as “Joseph Edmond Beaulieu”.

D. Revenue Disbursements claimed by Mrs. Perreault

i. Mr. Cardinal’s Objection

[41] The total sum in dispute is $27,940.18. Of that sum, in his review of Mrs. Perreault’s documents, Mr. Cardinal estimated $15,657.53 to be on account of various expenses incurred by Mrs. Perreault for Edmond’s benefit. $12,282.65 was on account of the time that Mrs. Perreault spent to take care of Mr. Edmond’s needs. She estimated her time to come to a total of 818.40 hours, which she billed at $15 / hour.

[42] Mrs. Perreault produced over 550 pages in copies of receipts and records concerning this subject. The overriding criticism concerning these productions was that it was very difficult to make any sense of what was being claimed. Some of the documents were not legible. Some of the figures did not make sense. Counsel highlighted some examples as emblematic of the mass confusion of what was being included in the expenses claimed. Finally, some of the receipts claimed concerned activities that predated Mrs. Perreault’s appointment as Power of Attorney for Edmond.

[43] Mr. Cardinal linked his concerns under this category of claims to his concerns with respect to the $43,000 claim related to the house and suggested that there was some sort of duplication or double-counting. He expressed the further concern that some of the expenses claimed might be expenses for Mrs. Perreault or her husband but not for Edmond. Mr. Cardinal advanced these allegations without any evidence.

ii. Mrs. Perreault’s Response

[44] Counsel admitted to having difficulties with the records because in some instances the receipts were on wet paper and the writing had faded away. He did not disagree with the submission that the records were not well-organized and were possibly incomplete. He went as far as to agree that there might be some duplication between the expenses in this category and the activities related to the cleaning and preparation of the house for sale, but he insisted that the intention was not to engage in any double-dipping.

[45] But counsel strenuously objected to the implication of any fraudulent conduct by Mrs. Perreault. He submitted that the Perraults took very good care of Edmond and did everything they could to respond to his needs always in good faith, and in recognition of their longstanding friendship. These sentiments for Edmond were underscored by the realization that Edmond was all alone and that nobody else visited him or took any interest in his well-being.

[46] In an effort to approach the analysis in a proportional and just manner, counsel suggested that one way to address this issue would be for the court to give a direction that the sum of approximately $12,000 on account of any remuneration for the personal care power of attorney be deducted from the claim for the Attorney’s compensation of $37,148.86.

E. Concerns with Statement of Original Assets, Capital Receipts, and Capital Disbursements

i. Mr. Cardinal’s Objections

[47] Apart from the submissions related to the sum of $43,000 and the request that $37,000 of that sum be added back into the Capital Receipts, Mr. Cardinal did not pursue these original objections.

ii. Mrs. Perreault’s Response

[48] Counsel echoed the overriding submissions with respect to the appropriateness of this claim and submitted that there was nothing wrong with what was claimed.

F. Management Fee

i. Mr. Cardinal’s Objection

[44] The sum in question is $14,181.47. Mr. Cardinal submitted that the tasks that Mrs. Perreault undertook in the management of Edmond’s money amounted to the types of regular activities that one would expect to undertake in the ordinary management of one’s money. That consisted of monitoring the GICs and renewing them as they matured. It also consisted of the payment of Edmond’s bills. A management fee should only be paid in extraordinary circumstances. Mrs. Perreault did not undertake any extraordinary efforts in the management of Edmond’s funds.

ii. Mrs. Perreault’s Response

[50] Counsel agreed that many of Mrs. Perreault’s tasks were the typical day to day activities that one would expect but he asked the court to consider Mrs. Perreault’s particular diligence. As evidence of that diligence, counsel highlighted the recovery of a lost GIC in the sum of $50,000, which but for Mrs. Perreault’s persistence would not have been recovered. He also highlighted the location of the stale-dated cheques, which added to a sum of approximately $7,000. But for Mrs. Perreault’s efforts, those cheques would have never been reissued.

ANALYSIS

a) General Principles

[51] Before I turn to my analysis and findings, it is useful to outline the applicable legal principles are contained in the following legislation:

[52] Section 61 of the Trustee Act, R.S.O., c. T.23, amended 2000, c.26 Sched. A, s.15(2), provides:

61(1) A trustee, guardian or personal representative is entitled to such fair and reasonable allowance for the care, pains, and trouble, and the time expended in and about the estate, as may be allowed by a judge of the Superior Court of Justice.

(3) The judge, in passing the accounts of a trustee or of a personal representative or guardian, may from time to time allow a fair and reasonable allowance for care, pains and trouble, and time expended in or about the estate.

[53] Given Mrs. Perreault’s appointment as Power of Attorney for Edmond’s property and personal care and needs, it is important to consider her duties which are outlined in sections 32(7) and (8) of the SDA are also engaged:

S.32(7) A guardian who does not receive compensation for managing the property shall exercise the degree of care, diligence and skill that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise in the conduct of his or her own affairs.

s.32(8) A guardian who receives compensation for managing the property shall exercise the degree of care, diligence and skill that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise in the conduct of his or her own affairs.

[54] In addition, Ontario Regulation, Accounts and Records of Attorneys and Guardians 100/96, outlines the requirements concerning the form and records to be kept by attorneys acting under a power of attorney:

2. (1) The accounts maintained by an attorney under a continuing power of attorney and a guardian of property shall include,

(a) a list of all the incapable person’s assets as of the date of the first transaction by the attorney or guardian on the incapable person’s behalf, including real property, money, securities, investments, motor vehicles and other personal property;

(b) an ongoing list of assets acquired and disposed of on behalf of the incapable person, including the date of and reason for the acquisition or disposition and from or to whom the asset is acquired or disposed;

(c) an ongoing list of all money received on behalf of the incapable person, including the amount, date, from whom it was received, the reason for the payment and the particulars of the account into which it was deposited;

(d) an ongoing list of all money paid out on behalf of the incapable person, including the amount, date, purpose of the payment and to whom it was paid;

(e) an ongoing list of all investments made on behalf of the incapable person, including the amount, date, interest rate and type of investment purchased or redeemed;

(f) a list of all the incapable person’s liabilities as of the date of the first transaction by the attorney or guardian on the incapable person’s behalf;

(g) an ongoing list of liabilities incurred and discharged on behalf of the incapable person, including the date, nature of and reason for the liability being incurred or discharged;

(h) an ongoing list of all compensation taken by the attorney or guardian, if any, including the amount, date and method of calculation;

(i) a list of the assets, and value of each, used to calculate the attorney’s or guardian’s care and management fee, if any. O. Reg. 100/96, s. 2 (1).

iii. (2) An attorney under a continuing power of attorney and a guardian of property shall also keep, together with the accounts described in subsection (1), a copy of the continuing power of attorney, certificate of statutory guardianship or court order constituting the authority of the attorney or guardian, a copy of the management plan, if any, and a copy of any court orders relating to the attorney’s or guardian’s authority or to the management of the incapable person’s property. O. Reg. 100/96, s. 2 (2).

[55] On the passing of accounts, ss. 42(1) and (8) provide that the court, may on application order that all or a specified part of the accounts of an attorney or guardian be passed. Subsection 8 allows the court to adjust a guardian’s compensation in accordance with the value of the services performed.

[56] With respect to the fixing of compensation for a fiduciary, the classic statement of the criteria is outlined in Re Toronto General Trusts and Central Ontario Railway, (1905), 6 O.W.R. 350 (H.C.) where five factors are outlined:

i. the magnitude of the trust;

ii. care, responsibility and risks assumed by the fiduciary;

iii. time spent by the fiduciary to carry out his responsibilities

iv. skill and ability required and displayed by the fiduciary;

v. results obtained and degree of success associated with the efforts of the fiduciary.

[57] Insofar as compensation for the executor or trustee is concerned, the Court in Assaf Estate (Re), referenced the following excerpt found in Rodney Hull and Ian Hull, Macdonnell, Sheard and Hull on Probate Practice, 4th ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 1996) at pp. 358-359 to conclude that compensation may be withheld from an executor or trustee where there is serious or exceptional misconduct:

The conduct of an executor or trustee in carrying out his or her duties may be such as to justify the Court in depriving him or her of the right to remuneration; and an executor must make a proper accounting as a condition precedent to being awarded compensation. But only exceptional misconduct should deprive him or her of the right to remuneration … In general, although an executor may be guilty of neglect and defaults, these, if not dishonest, and capable of being made good in money, do not deprive the executor of the right to compensation although they may influence the amount allowed. See also Sievewright v. Leys (1882), 1 O.R. 375, [1882] O.J. No. 137 (H.C.J.); McLenagan v. Perkins (1902), 5 O.L.R. 129, [1902] O.J. No. 24 (C.A.); Picov Estate (Re), [2000] O.J. No. 682 (S.C.J.).

[58] Finally, it is important to recognize the Court’s inherent discretion anticipated by Rule 1 (1.1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

b) General Findings

[59] Turning to my findings, before I turn to the specific objections and findings, I wish to make the following general findings concerning Mrs. Perreault.

[60] In my review of her affidavits, her cross-examination and her numerous hand-written notes on the records she produced, I found Mrs. Perreault to be well-meaning, sympathetic, caring, simple-minded and naïve and with limited skills and education. Her handling of Edmond’s personal needs and his property revealed somebody who was fastidious but with a limited capacity to distinguish the forest for the trees. The basis for these findings is outlined in the next several paragraphs.

[61] The best example of her fastidiousness is reflected in the work she undertook to wash the Beaulieus’ linens and all their clothes before she donated them to charity. She was alive to the concern that Edmond had some skin disease and that there could be bacteria on the linen that ought to be disinfected before they were donated. It is evident that it did not cross her mind that it would have been far more efficient to throw out the linen altogether, particularly since it would have been stored in closets and in a home that as a result of all the hoarding and being overrun by animals would likely be impossible to clean without some commercial disinfecting treatment, to say nothing about the condition they might be in the first place. But there is no doubt that she undertook the work and that she did it deliberately and with great care.

[62] That same fastidiousness is what allowed her to locate almost $7,000 worth of stale-dated cheques, which she followed up on and replaced, to the benefit of the estate. It was also her persistence with the TD Bank that resulted in the location of a GIC account in the sum of $50,000 that belonged to Edmond that had previously been missed by the bank. It was also her attention to detail that led Mrs. Perreault to catch a $56 error in the accountant’s preparation of Edmond’s tax return.

[63] As I will explain more fully below, Mrs. Perreault’s inability to evaluate the proportionality of her efforts to the cost for such efforts is unfortunate. But I believe her when she says she and her husband spent several hundred hours to clean the house. I also find that she brought to the various tasks the prudence that she would bring to her own affairs, as defined by her level of education and degree of sophistication.

[64] Building on my assessment of Mrs. Perreault’s prudence, I cannot ignore the undisputed evidence that the Beaulieus’ were hoarders and that their home would best be described as a “hoarder’s paradise”. Words cannot capture the condition of the home reflected in the pictures that were submitted into evidence. Counsel for Mrs. Perreault was correct to say that pictures can capture 1000 words. Only in this case, even those thousand words were insufficient to capture the enormity of the task that Mrs. Perreault and her husband undertook.

[65] The magnitude of the task was reflected in the contravention notice and order issued by the City of Mississauga from 2006 which referenced boxes, materials and blue tarps on the front porch and the rear yard. Mississauga required the property be cleaned up and repaired, failing which the Beaulieus would face demolition of their home. That complaint predated the Perreaults’ activities in 2008 but given the evidence that both Rita and Edmond were in a nursing home for some time before Rita’s death, and in Edmond’s case, since 2004, there is no evidence that any efforts were undertaken to deal with the condition of the house. More to the point, a property owner would not be faced with a demolition order if the infractions were minor.

[66] Against these findings, in addition to being prudent and conscientious, I find Mrs. Perreault and her husband were most courageous to take on the monumental task of cleaning out the home and rendering it spotless, as depicted by the before, during, and after photos.

[67] Insofar as Mr. Cardinal attempted to challenge the date the photos were taken, I found that to be a spurious attempt to raise a doubt over the Perreaults’ bona fides efforts. Mr. Cardinal attended the home when the cleaning was underway and he would therefore have had a firsthand appreciation of the circumstances. It is rather rich for him to doubt those efforts or try to question the Perreaults’ ability to undertake and complete the task. The reality is that although the photos were not dated, the before, during and after photos of the various rooms of the house, the mounds of garbage on the curb, and pictures of Mr. Perreault while he was cleaning capture the timeframe during which the photos would have been taken. They also reflect the full enormity of the Perreaults’ cleaning efforts. Most significantly, by the end, the house was rendered spotless.

[68] Insofar as the allegations that Mrs. Perreault was dishonest, vexatious in her conduct, or that in paying for Rita’s funeral expenses she misappropriated funds, and otherwise engaged in reprehensible conduct, I find them preposterous, mean-spirited and without any credible foundation. To be clear, this is not to say that Mrs. Perreault did not make mistakes or that some aspects of her claims were disproportionate or may have included some double-counting. But that is a long way from a conclusion that Mrs. Perreault was out to take advantage of or steal from Edmond’s estate, as Mr. Cardinal alleged. Moreover, there was absolutely no evidence that Mrs. Perreault advanced any claims for work she did not do.

[69] In keeping with these findings, Mrs. Perreault’s disposition and approach to her tasks is underscored in her many handwritten notes to Mr. Greenslade where she reported and justified even the smallest of her transactions. That said, the best insight into Mrs. Perreault’s prudence, kindness and diligence is captured in one her hand-written notes to Mr. Cardinal and his wife, contained in Mr. Cardinal’s productions. I have reproduced it in French because it is really the only way to capture Mrs. Perreault’s elegant kindness. My translation of the letter is at Scheduled “A” of my judgment.

Dec. 2.08

Bonjour Pierette + Roger.

Comment allez-vous? Très bien j’espère.

Cette année, je perds 2 personnes importantes mon amie Rita et le 16 oct. 08 mon père décédé a 86 ans.

Alors, c’est mon frère qui est exécuteur avec moi pour mon père, qui s’occupe de cela, et ma mère est vivante elle a 84 ans.

Comme je ne sais pas si vous êtes allés au Texas cette année alors j'avais pensé envoyé les photos trouvées à Alfred.

Roger Daniel Gosselin a reçu son chèque de $10,000 Alors c’est faite correct sur ce côte là.

J’ai envoyé par le transport que je travaille le coffer de cèdre plein à Suzanne Cloutier. Elle l’a reçu et avec des photos

Elle est très contente des souvenirs de sa tante + oncle.

Je reçois des lettres de la parenté, ils son très heureuses que je m’occupe de Edmond.

J’ai placé tout l’argent de la maison. J’ai faxé les copies à l’avocat pour attacher avec le testament d’Edmond. Alors si je ne suis pas la, l’avocat saura à quel endroit le montant au complet il est placé.

Je ne pense pas à avoir à utilizer le montant exact de la maison. J’ai mis séparé un $10,000 pour les impôts pas faites 2005, 2006, 2007 2008 … au cas de nécessaire.

L’argent par mois qu’il reçoit je m’arrange avec cela pour le moment. S’il na pas d’imprévu ca restera comme cela…

Samedi j’irai avec Edmond pour un examen de la vue, et probablement des lunettes? Il a dit, il en a jamais eu. Je serai avec lui pour traduire.

Donc Passez un bel hiver. Reposez-vous biens tous deux.

Ginette P.

[70] These are not the sentiments or the report of somebody who is vexatious, who is misappropriating funds, or who is trying to avoid her responsibilities. Nor does the communication reflect somebody seeking to exclude Mr. Cardinal from her activities. She reports on her activities with much care and reflects her diligence and concern to please everyone related to Edmond. Mrs. Perreault comes across as very warm in her sentiments towards the Cardinals and harbours no grudge or resentment for having had to look after Edmond’s estate on her own. She wishes the Cardinals well and tells them to take care of themselves.

[71] More to the point, this was yet another opportunity for Mr. Cardinal to speak up and ask questions if there were something that troubled him in what he read. Mr. Cardinal was critical of this communication because he said that this was the first time that he learned of the payment to Gosselin. I have difficulty accepting that criticism for two reasons. First, the manner in which Mrs. Perreault reported on this payment suggested the continuation of the subject from a previous conversation. In this letter she appears to be reporting on the payment and the conclusion of the specific transaction. She is not introducing the subject for the first time. This is to be contrasted in relation to Suzanne where she goes into substantial detail. Second, the payment to Mr. Gosselin was disclosed to Mr. Cardinal in the ledger that as sent out in October 2008. There was no suggestion that Mr. Cardinal did not receive that statement.

[72] The expenses that Mrs. Perreault undertook to care for Edmond were also in keeping with her generosity of spirit and caring disposition. Contrary to Mr. Cardinal’s submission that the said expenses could not have been for Edmond, in my review of Mrs. Perreault’s records and the 550 plus pages of receipts, I find that the vast majority of the day to day expenses were incurred at places such as Denny’s, Swiss Chalet, Giant Tiger, Basic Food and various Dollar stores. They were also for specific categories of purchases: some meals, sometimes with Edmond, fruits, treats, flowers, birthday cakes for Edmond, plaid shirts and pajamas, razors and other miscellaneous items.

[73] Frugality in Mrs. Perreault’s approach would be an understatement. If she were inclined to misappropriate funds as alleged by Mr. Cardinal, it would be surprising that she would be limiting her expenses to the noted items. Why not buy something for herself? As difficult as it was to scrutinize every receipt, in my review of Mrs. Perreault’s evidence, I saw no expense that I would attribute to her needs or that were unrelated to her care for Edmond. Where she claimed a meal for herself, I accept her evidence that she did so on outings with Edmond. The scooter did raise certain questions but not sufficient to support a challenge to Mrs. Perreault’s integrity. Against these findings I find Mr. Cardinal’s allegations to be without a foundation.

[74] Mrs. Perreault’s prudence was further underscored in the diligent way that she handled all of Edmond’s monthly expenses. In contrast to Mr. Cardinal’s extraordinary allegations, the very pronounced criticisms, fees to the retirement homes (Rosedale and Peel Manor) were paid regularly and in a timely manner. In this regard, Mrs. Perreault was systematic and deliberate in her approach to Edmond’s care.

[75] In this regard, I found it difficult to reconcile Mr. Cardinal’s questioning of whether or not Mrs. Perreault actually paid Edmond’s monthly residential fee to Peel Manor. It was not disputed that Mrs. Perreault did not maintain detailed accounting records in the way that a professional accountant would do. But it was also undisputed that Edmond lived at Rosedale Residences and then Peel Manor for the 7.5 years that he was under Mrs. Perreault’s care. Had there been any difficulties with the payment of the residential fees, there can be little doubt that Peel Manor would have complained, or taken steps to have Edmond leave. There was absolutely no such evidence. Nor were there any payments for penalties against late payments.

[76] Going back to the letter from Mrs. Perreault to Mr. Cardinal, it is evident that Mrs. Perreault thought through Edmond’s expenses very carefully. She took the necessary care to evaluate whether the monthly monies that he received from WSIB and for his pension, his monthly expenses could be met without any need to touch the funds from the sale of the home. She brought to this assessment the prudence of an ordinary individual. The strongest evidence of that prudence is the fact that consistent with her assessment, Mrs. Perreault did not have to touch the proceeds from the sale of the house in the seven and a half years that she managed Edmond’s affairs.

[77] Finally, insofar as Mr. Cardinal was critical of Mrs. Perreault’s failure to keep him informed about her activities as executor of Rita’s estate and then of Edmond’s estate, the allegations are unfounded. I see no evidence of any deliberate effort by Mrs. Perreault to exclude Mr. Cardinal from the estate activities. I find that Mr. Cardinal was fully advised of Mrs. Perreault’s management of Rita’s estate as well as the steps she took for Edmond’s care and the management of his affairs. If Mr. Cardinal had concerns he only needed to ask. As for the letter of December 10, 2008 from Mr. Greenslade, the criticism that Mrs. Perreault failed to report to Mr. Cardinal is unfair because it was Mr. Greenslade who wrote the letter. He should have been the one to write to Mr. Cardinal, as he had in the past. That failure should not be visited on Mrs. Perreault.

[78] Insofar as any notice to Benoit Cardinal is concerned, Mrs. Perreault’s admission that she did not have an address for Benoit and that in any event she understood her obligations to attach to where the Beaulieus were living would have been an issue for Benoit to pursue, had he chosen to participate in this hearing. It is not an issue that relates to any obligations owing to Roger Cardinal. That said, without making any finding on the interpretation of the “and/or” appointment in the Powers of Attorney, I note that Mrs. Perreault’s conduct was consistent with her understanding that she would be responsible for the Beaulieus’ needs as long as they lived in Mississauga/Brampton. Consistent with that understanding, Mr. Greenslade’s letter of September 17, 2018 was entirely transparent in the following explanation:

“As you [are] aware the Power of Attorney provides that either Benoit Cardinal or Ginette Perreault have authority to sign or behalf of Edmond Beaulieu. Obviously since it is more convenient we will have Ginette sign the necessary papers to complete the sale transaction. For your records a Copy of Purchase and Sale is enclosed.”

Counsel’s practical approach tracks the convenience of location and dovetails with Mrs. Perreault’s understanding of the nature of her responsibilities.

[79] Most significantly, if there were something wrong with Mr. Greenslade’s proposed approach, Mr. Cardinal had every opportunity to object to it, to redirect the communication to his son, or even, to ask counsel to communicate directly with Benoit. There was no evidence that he undertook any such steps. Insofar as Mr. Cardinal tried to use this issue as one more indicator of Mrs. Perreault’s vexatious or egregious conduct, the allegation is without any merit.

c) Specific Findings

[80] I now turn to my specific findings on the various objections.

A. $43,000 on account of the cleaning and sale of the Beaulieu Home

[81] Although this claim is prima facie excessive, when one considers the monumental task that the Perreaults had to face to clean up the Beaulieu home, it is very difficult to object to their efforts on the costs that they claim. It is not necessary to repeat my findings concerning the condition of the house or Mrs. Perreaults’ intentions. In short, the task was enormous and extraordinary. Somebody had to clean that place and then put it up for sale. Mrs. Perreault did just that. I cannot imagine that this was a pleasant task to undertake but Mrs. Perreault and her husband undertook it in painstaking detail, and without any complaint.

[82] In my review of the hours claimed, I do find that the hours have been rounded up and that the recording of the time amounts to a best estimate as opposed to a minute-by-minute recording. Notes from a diary might have helped but even then, the best evidence concerning the Perreaults’ efforts rests with the “before, during and after” photos. Against these observations, if the hours seem generous, the hourly rate of $15 is just above minimum wage. I consider that low, having regard for everything the Perreault’s did to clean the Beaulieu home. The task was not just about throwing out garbage. Mrs. Perreault and her husband sorted, reviewed, washed, saved, replaced the floors and rendered the place spotless.

[83] I also cannot lose sight of the fact that it was through Mrs. Perreault’s diligence that she was able to located $7,000 in stale-dated cheques, that would have otherwise been thrown out. Mrs. Perreault was also able to organize and send a number of item to the relatives of Rita and Edmond, as she indicated in her letter to Mr. Cardinal. Although there was no evidence to allow me to evaluate whether Mrs. Perreault’s efforts were appreciated by the relatives, that is not the test to be met. It is the prudence of the ordinary person. Mrs. Perreault exceeded the level of prudence that one would expect. She was certainly not imprudent.

[84] Another way to evaluate and justify the cost that is claimed is to measure it against the price that was obtained for the sale of the house. The warning by the City of Mississauga that failure to comply with the clean-up order would result in the demolition of the property, speaks to the condition of the home. While I recognize that the evidence concerning this particular issue was very limited, it offered a reliable glimpse into the condition of the home. The Perreaults’ claim for $43,000, already paid out of the proceeds of the sale of the home at a price of $295,000, represents approximately a cost of 14 per cent. As with everything else, in the abstract, the 14 per cent seems high. But absent the Perreaults’ efforts, I am prepared to draw the inference that the property would have sold for far less than the $295,000. This finding does not begin to consider the implications of a possible demolition of the house had the Perreaults not intervened to clean it up. Viewed in this way, I do not find the claim so unreasonable so as to deny or reduce it.

[85] Insofar as Mr. Cardinal’s objections were anchored on the requirements of s. 32(8) of the SDO, I find that the payment that Mrs. Perreault claimed was not a management fee. Nor did she manage the matrimonial home. She claimed a cleaning fee for herself and her husband on account of the cleaning that the two undertook. Immediately thereafter, Mrs. Perreault put the home up for sale and proceeded to invest the monies earned into GICs. She did not seek any compensation for the management of the property.

[86] Accordingly, her conduct as fiduciary ought to be measured against the requirements of s. 32(7) of the SDO, or more specifically, to “exercise the degree of care, diligence and skill that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise in the conduct of his or her own affairs”. On the totality of the evidence before the court and my appreciation of Mrs. Perrault’s way of thinking, reflected in many of her hand-written notes, her limited education and capacity, and her deep commitment to her friends, I have no difficulty concluding that Mrs. Perreault satisfied that standard. She managed Edmond’s care, his property and his estate in the way that she would have managed her own affairs.

[87] If I am wrong in my application of s. 37(7), I rely on my inherent jurisdiction to allow the claim as I am of the view that in many respects, no amount of money could capture the value of Mrs. Perreault’s diligence, humanity courage and commitment to Rita and Edmond Beaulieu.

[88] In the result, I conclude that Mrs. Perreault does not have to reimburse the estate of the sum of $43,000. Nor does she have to deduct that from her beneficial entitlement.

B. The payment of Rita’s debts out of Edmond’s Estate

[89] I strenuously disagree with the contention that this payment amounted to a misappropriation of Edmond’s funds. Rita and Edmond were spouses for over 50 years. They did not have any children. There was a reference to Edmond’s younger brother and a couple of nieces and nephews in Quebec but the couple was alone here in Ontario. From all of the evidence before the court, it is reasonable to conclude that Edmond would have wanted to pay for Rita’s debts, which in the grand scheme of things came to about $13,000, was minimal. The competing suggestion that the estate should have declared bankruptcy made no sense. Accordingly, I reject this objection in its entirety.

C. The advance payment to the nephew, Roger Daniel Gosselin

[90] As with the issue of Rita’s debts, this particular objection was without any reasonable foundation. Mr. Cardinal had full disclosure as of October 14, 2008 of the $10,000 payment to Mr. Gosselin and it was fully transparent that the monies were paid out of the proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home. Given the mirror bequest in Edmond’s will, the said sum would have been paid to Mr. Gosselin. Edmond’s estate was not compromised in any way by such an advance payment.

[91] To the extent that Mr. Cardinal raised the hypothetical that Mrs. Perreault risked running out of money to care for Edmond’s future needs, Mrs. Perreault’s letter to Mr. Cardinal of December 2008 demonstrated that she turned her mind to that concern and planned for what she referred to as the unforeseen. The alleged risk was not credible. It was contrived to add to Mr. Cardinal’s list of objections. Accordingly, I reject this objection it its entirety.

D. The Revenue Disbursements Claimed

[92] This issue is problematic because the accounting of the disbursements was incomplete and disorganized. There may also be some double-counting. The issue of the scooter was also problematic. What came through in the evidence in spades was Mrs. Perreault’s conscientiousness and care in the way that she went about the various responsibilities related to Edmond’s care.

[93] My greatest concern rests with Mrs. Perreault’s concession through her lawyer that approximately $12,000 related to Mrs. Perreault’s care for Edmond and that she did not advance a claim for his personal care. Counsel also agreed that the accounting reflected some duplication with the efforts related to the cleaning of the matrimonial home. It was a bit confounding to me to learn that counsel had not advanced such a claim even though the sum for Edmond’s care was substantial. Counsel did not offer any real explanation for this omission.

[94] On the expenses relating to Edmond’s needs, I find that the pattern of buying fruits, treats, flowers, plaid shirts and pajamas, are suggestive of purchases designed to make Edmond feel comfortable at Peel Manor. On more than one occasion I noted in Mrs. Perreault’s records her explanations to her lawyer about bringing the fruit to Edmond and making him happy. In sum, they reveal somebody who did her best to respond to Edmond’s needs. Mrs. Perreault did not spend Edmond’s money frivolously or irresponsibly. She conducted herself in the way that a prudent person would do in her place.

[95] In light of the noted concerns, and having regard for the breakdown of the sum of $27,940.18 into $15,657.53 for expenses for Edmond and $12,282.65 on account of Mrs. Perreault’s time, I exercise my inherent discretion to reduce the claim by $6,000 such that Revenue Disbursements are reduced to $21,940.18. I consider this a reasonable reduction as the reduced figure would come to just under $3,000/year ($250 a month) in expenses related to Edmond’s needs. That sum is not unreasonable having regard for the totality of Edmond’s expenses. The reduction of $6,000 is a fair estimate of the duplication in the accounting with the period during which the Perreaults were cleaning the Beaulieu home, the cost of the scooter, the illegible receipts and some receipts that seemed to pre-date Mrs. Perreault’s actual involvement with Edmond. On the latter set of receipts, I attribute the inclusion to an error as opposed to any deliberate attempt to mislead. I also have regard for the fact that some of those latter receipts may have related to the care that Mrs. Perreault extended to Rita, for which she did not claim any compensation.

[96] With respect to a reconciliation of the $6,000, if the parties have difficulty on how the figure should be accounted and whether it would result in a reimbursement or a set-off against other monies owed to Mrs. Perrrault, the parties may make written submissions to me, as I discuss more fully below.

E. The Statement of Original Assets, the Capital Receipts, the Capital Disbursements and the Revenue Receipts

[97] Although Mr. Cardinal did not ultimately pursue the concerns for these categories, I did review the evidence and do not have any concerns over the amounts claimed.

F. Management Fee

[98] With respect to this request, I see nothing extraordinary in Mrs. Perreault’s conduct to allow for the inclusion of a management fee in the attorney’s overall compensation. I appreciate Mrs. Perrault’s submissions concerning her extra diligence but I just do not see that as an appropriate request particularly since she was not managing any extensive property. Insofar as Edmond’s major asset was concerned, Mrs. Perreault cleaned it up with her husband’s assistance and sold it. She then invested the monies in GICs that were renewed from time to time as they came up for renewal. The cleaning expenses that I allowed more than account for Mrs. Perreault’s diligence. The case would have been very different if the home was one that Mrs. Perreault rented out to tenants, received funds, managed renovations and repairs and ran it in the way that a landlord might use such a property. This is not this case. Accordingly, it is inappropriate to include in the attorney’s fee the sum of $14,181.47.

NEXT STEPS

[99] Given my findings on the objections, the parties are to prepare the necessary revisions to the accounting. I am mindful that both parties submitted Requests for Increased Costs and there are of course the costs of this Application and the costs of the original Application for an accounting.

[100] Unless the parties are now able to reach a final resolution on the basis of my findings and therefore put an end to their respective legal costs, counsel should contact my office to arrange for an initial teleconference to discuss the appropriate procedure for next steps. I am open to receiving written submissions on each of the outstanding issues, to be followed possibly by a short in person appearance, if necessary, but I am also very mindful of the legal costs associated with any additional attendances.

E. RIA TZIMAS J

Released: December 11, 2018

SCHEDULE A

Hello Pierette + Roger.

How are you? Well I hope.

This year I lost 2 important people. My friend Rita and on Oct. 16, 2008 my father. Dead at 86 years of age.

So, my brother is executor with me for my father. He is occupied with that and my mother is alive. She is 84 years old.

As I do not know if you went to Texas this year I thought of sending you the photos found at Alfred’s.

Roger Daniel Gosselin received his cheque for $10,000. So that is done well at that end.

I sent by transportation where I work a cedar chest that was full to Suzanne Cloutier. She received it with photos. She was very pleased to have the memories of her aunt and uncle.

I have received letters from the relatives. They are very pleased that I am caring for Edmond.

I invested all of the money from the house. I faxed the copies to the lawyer so that he can attach them to Edmond’s will. So if I am not there the lawyer will know where the complete sum has been invested.

The money he receives every month – I manage with that. If there is nothing unforeseen things will remain like that.

On Saturday I will take Edmond for an eye examination and probably glasses? He said that he never had such an exam. I will be there to translate for him. I wish you a great winter. Rest well.

Ginette P.