Dawson et al v. Dawson et al, 2026 ONSC 4215

CITATION: Dawson et al v. Dawson et al, 2026 ONSC 4215

COURT FILE NO.: CV-18-00077001-0000

DATE: 2026/07/21

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Sheila Maria Dawson and Rachel Harris (Applicants)

AND

Estate of Josephine Dawson, Deceased, by the litigation administrator, Miriam Vale Peters, Estate of Michael Dawson, Deceased, by the litigation administrator, Miriam Vale Peters, and Anthony Vikram Dawson (Respondents)

BEFORE: Justice Marc R. Labrosse

COUNSEL: David Scharf, for the Applicants

Gary G. Boyd, for the Respondent Anthony Vikram Dawson

Alyssa Tomkins, for the Estate of Josephine Dawson

HEARD: November 19, 2025

reasons for decision

Overview

1This application concerns the validity of powers of attorney (POAs) and wills executed by Josephine Dawson and Michael Dawson in April 2017, and then again in December 2017.

2The applicants, Sheila Dawson and Rachel Harris, allege that Anthony Dawson exercised undue influence over his parents, Josephine and Michael, and that the wills and POAs from 2017 should therefore be set aside. They further allege that Josephine and Michael lacked the requisite testamentary capacity when the testamentary documents were executed. The applicants also seek relief respecting Anthony’s conduct as attorney for property and the use of Josephine and Michael’s funds. They seek an accounting of his expenses.

3Josephine Dawson died on January 11, 2024. Michael Dawson died on July 28, 2025. The matter therefore proceeds as a challenge to the validity of the impugned wills and POAs and related estate relief.

4At the hearing of this application, the applicants pursued the issue of capacity, but it was acknowledged that the true question at issue was if there was undue influence exercised by Anthony over his parents leading up to the signature of the wills. Most of the focus was on the signature of the December 2017 wills.

5For the reasons that follow, I conclude that the applicants have established, on a balance of probabilities, that Anthony exercised undue influence over Josephine and Michael in relation to the execution of the December 2017 wills that removed Sheila and Rachel as beneficiaries.

6I am not satisfied, however, that the applicants have established lack of testamentary capacity at the relevant times. In the end, Anthony must account for the expenses incurred on behalf of his parents.

7Accordingly, the applicants succeed on the issue of undue influence but not on the issue of testamentary incapacity. The December 2017 wills are set aside on the basis of undue influence. Anthony shall pass his accounts for the period from April 2017 to the date of Michael’s death.

Issues

8This application raises the following issues:

i. Did Josephine and Michael Dawson possess testamentary capacity in April 2017 and December 2017?

ii. Have the applicants established that Anthony exercised undue influence over Josephine and Michael in relation to the execution of the wills and POAs?

iii. Should an order be made providing that Anthony pass his accounts and, if so, for what period of time?

Background

9The application was commenced on July 3, 2018.

10The applicants sought declarations that Josephine and Michael were incapable of managing property and personal care, removal of Anthony from positions of authority, invalidation of the POAs and wills, and ancillary relief. Numerous interlocutory proceedings occurred.

11On August 14, 2018, Justice Gomery ordered capacity assessments of Josephine and Michael. Those assessments were completed by Dr. Francine Sarazin on August 30, 2018. Josephine was found to have testamentary capacity while Michael lacked testamentary capacity at that time.

12On September 25, 2020, Josephine was appointed litigation guardian for Michael. Justice Gomery observed that the litigation would require determination of the validity of the April 2017 POAs and wills and the December 2017 wills and POA. Josephine continued to act as Michael’s litigation guardian until her death.

13Anthony was appointed as the Estate Trustee for Josephine’s Estate after Sheila withdrew her objection to the appointment. Josephine’s Estate was transferred to her beneficiary, Micheal. Anthony was the sole remaining attorney under Michael’s power of attorney and the executor and sole remaining beneficiary under the December 2017 wills made by both of his parents.

14After the deaths of Josephine and Michael, orders were obtained permitting continuation of the proceeding against their estates.

Relevant Evidence

15Sheila and Anthony are Josephine and Michael’s children. Rachel is the daughter of Sheila and the only grandchild of Josephine and Michael.

16The applicants present evidence of a close and loving family relationship between the applicant and her parents that existed for decades prior to 2017. Sheila testified that she spoke with her parents almost daily and visited them multiple times per week. Rachel described an especially close relationship with her grandparents that extended throughout her childhood and adulthood.

17Neighbours Margo den Hann and Kenneth and Sharon Gehrel provided corroborative evidence. In particular, the neighbours paint a very positive picture of Sheila and her husband Gary and how they had always been very helpful to Josephine and Michael. Conversely, their description of Anthony was very negative in that he was abusive and did not visit often and that they could hear Anthony screaming at his parents from inside the house.

18The applicants also adduced evidence describing a longstanding pattern of aggressive and intimidating behaviour by Anthony. The evidence included allegations that Anthony shouted at his parents, belittled them, verbally abused them, and exercised dominance during family interactions. Several incidents were described between approximately 2001 and 2016. In particular, Michael had written a note about a request he made to Anthony to pay a debt and Anthony responded aggressively to his father by swearing at him. In cross-examination, Anthony denied ever having borrowed money from his parents although certain bank documents contradict this.

19The applicants further rely upon evidence that after April 2017, Anthony isolated Josephine and Michael from family members, neighbours, and their church community. Both Sheila and Rachel testified that things changed drastically after April 2017 when Anthony was named as the attorney for property.

20According to the applicants:

a. The locks were changed by Anthony to his parents’ house shortly after Anthony was named as the attorney. Shiela was not given a key to their parents’ home;

b. Communications with Josephine and Michael were restricted by Anthony;

c. Visits were controlled and even prevented by Anthony. This was seen when Josephine was in the hospital in the fall and Anthony told Sheila that she was not allowed to see her parents, she could not visit at the hospital nor at the residence;

d. Information about serious medical events was withheld from Sheila;

e. Anthony emptied a significant amount of family possessions from his parents’ home without advising Sheila; and

f. Anthony insisted that all contact with his parents occur through him.

21The applicants tendered evidence of Josephine's declining health and bouts of delirium. There was evidence concerning diabetes-related episodes, hospitalizations, confusion, deteriorating memory, and increasing dependence on others. Michael's hearing difficulties and age-related decline were likewise documented. By April 2017, Josephine was approximately 83 years old and Michael approximately 92 years old.

22From August 2018 until June 2024, the applicants allege that Anthony made transfers from his parents’ joint account in the amount of $584,000 of which $452,000 were to his own account and $132,000 were to unknown accounts. Anthony claims to have reported the source of $340,000 of those transfers, leaving $244,000 unaccounted. Anthony also claims that there is still about $100,000 that he knows of that can be reported. The applicants claim that this would leave at least $144,000 for which there is no explanation. Michael never passed his accounts and as such, his reporting has not been reviewed by the court.

23Also, the applicants rely on the significant increase in spending that took place after Anthony became the attorney for property. Amounts paid to the parents’ credit card increased significantly along with the total amount of expenses.

24Anthony denies allegations of undue influence and lack of capacity. He relies on the evidence of solicitor Gregory Farnand who prepared the April 2017 wills and POAs and the wills and POAs in December 2017.

25Mr. Farnand met with Josephine and Michael on multiple occasions in April 2017 and again in November and December 2017. Mr. Farnand testified that he met privately with Josephine and Michael and took instructions directly from them. He obtained medical confirmation from Dr. Adetola respecting competence and relied both upon those medical opinions and his own observations.

26Mr. Farnand’s evidence was that he met with both Josephine and Michael twice in April 2017 (on the 25^th and the 27^th). He met again with Josephine and Michael in November 2017. His last direct contact with them was December 12, 2017. However, Josephine and Michael never spoke to Mr. Farnand over the telephone. Those contacts were made with Anthony.

27Anthony relies on the process used by Mr. Farnand to justify the new wills and the new POAs that named Anthony as the sole attorney in April 2017. Then again in December 2017, Mr. Farnand followed a process to draft new wills which cut Sheila out as a beneficiary and left everything to Anthony.

28Anthony’s evidence speaks positively about his relationship with his parents and negatively about the relationship between Sheila and her parents. His evidence about Sheila’s husband Gary is also presented in a very negative fashion.

29In April 2018, Mr. Farnand wrote a cease and desist letter to Sheila advising her not to attend at her parents’ residence and not to visit them at the retirement home. Mr. Farnand admitted that he never spoke to either Josephine or Michael about that letter. He took those instructions directly from Anthony. However, there is an indication that Josephine countersigned the letter on hers and Michael’s behalf.

30The respondent further relies upon the April 2018 assessment by Dr. Oroz and the August 2018 assessment by Dr. Sarazin to justify that his parents were capable of signing the wills and POAs in both April and December 2017.

31In her assessment, Dr. Sarazin found that Josephine retained her capacity to nominate an attorney for property but noted that Josephine encountered difficulty with concrete financial related activities such as deciphering bills and writing cheques. Dr. Sarazin’s assessment was that Josephine had the capacity to appoint Anthony but would have to depend on him to oversee her and, ultimately, depend on him to manage her financial matters on her behalf.

32In large part, Anthony does not dispute many of the allegations made by Sheila, Rachel and the neighbours. He dismisses the allegations and suggests that it is not worth addressing. Oddly, he does not dispute many of the allegations such as changing the locks, restricting access to his parents, isolating his parents from others and making unilateral decisions about their care. In large part, he has not responded to the allegations about his aggressive conduct with his parents and his family over the years. He has also not taken the opportunity to provide a fully detailed accounting of how he has spent his parents’ money, particularly during the years when he acted as their attorney.

33Much of his evidence concerning what he reports was his parents’ negative views of Gary, negative views of Sheila and particularly Josephine’s apparent desire that Sheila not visit her, are not corroborated. In May 2017, Anthony wrote to Sheila to advise that her visit on Mothers’ Day with Josephine was upsetting and that Josephine reported that Sheila was asking questions about finances. Sheila denied this and said that there were no such conversations and that her visit with her mother was very pleasant. None of this was reported by Josephine to anyone, other than allegedly to Anthony.

34Josephine’s views were never put before the court. She was a party to this litigation from its inception in July 2018 until her death in January 2024. At no point during this litigation was her evidence taken. She never provided an affidavit. She never picked a side. Josephine was represented by counsel throughout. She had every opportunity to formally support Anthony’s position and confirm that she wanted nothing to do with Sheila or Rachel, but this was never done.

35Anthony has attempted to provide hearsay evidence about his parents’ taking offence to this litigation and this cemented their resolve against Sheila but there is no support for such allegations.

36Josephine was represented by counsel throughout. She had every opportunity to formally support Anthony’s position and confirm that she wanted nothing to do with Sheila or Rachel, but this was never done.

Applicable Law

Testamentary Capacity

37There is a statutory presumption that a person who is eighteen years of age or older is capable of entering into a contract: see Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, Chapter 30, section 2(1).

38The onus is on the moving party alleging incapacity: see Calvert (Litigation Guardian of) v. Calvert (1997), 1997 CanLII 12096 (ON CTGD), 32 O.R. (3d) 281 (S.C.).

39Consideration of the law should begin with the instructive comment of Low J. in Abrams v. Abrams (2009), 247 O.A.C. (Div. Ct), at para. 56 where he stated:

An application for a declaration of incapacity under the SDA is an attack on the citizen’s autonomy and, in the event of a finding of incapacity, which is a judgment in rem, results in the abrogation of one or more of the most fundamental of her rights: the right to sovereignty over her person and the right to dominion over her property.

40The court in Starson v. Swayze, 2003 SCC 32, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 722 cautioned that appreciation does not mean the decision must be in the person’s “best interests”.

41In Elmi v. Hirsi, &autocompletePos=1)2015 ONSC 6003, at para. &autocompletePos=1)24&autocompletePos=1), Justice Fairburn wrote:

Individual autonomy is to be respected, fostered and encouraged. Whether with respect to property or personal care, an adult individual is presumed to be in a position to make decisions about their own current and future circumstances. The dignity and integrity of the individual depend upon this presumption. It should not be lightly interfered with. Any usurping of an individual’s right to self-determination must be exercised sparingly and only on the basis of clear evidence.

42As stated by Strathy J. in Kischer v. Kischer, 2009 CanLII 495 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 10, “[t]he assessment process is an important tool for the court in the discharge of its responsibility to protect the vulnerable. It enables the court to obtain an objective, independent and expert assessment of the individual’s capacity, free from the partisan and subjective perceptions of the parties.”

Undue Influence

43Capacity and undue influence are distinct doctrines. A person may possess testamentary capacity and nevertheless execute a will as a result of undue influence.

44When there is an allegation of undue influence, the burden is on those attacking the will: see Seepa v. Seepa, 2017 ONSC 5368, at para. 23.

45The Supreme Court of Canada in Vout v. Hay, 1995 CanLII 105 (SCC), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 876, recognized that a testator may understand what he or she is doing and yet be acting because of coercion or domination.

46Laskin J.A. (dissenting on other grounds) set out a modern restatement of the test of capacity in Re Schwartz (1970), 1970 CanLII 32 (ON CA), 2 O.R. 61 (C.A.), at p. 78:

The testator must be sufficiently clear in his understanding and memory to know, on his own, and in a general way (1) the nature and extent of his property, (2) the persons who are the natural objects of his bounty and (3) the testamentary provisions he is making; and he must, moreover, be capable of (4) appreciating these factors in relation to each other, and (5) forming an orderly desire as to the disposition of his property ...

47The court must assess capacity at the time of execution of the will: Hall v. Bennett Estate (2003), 2003 CanLII 7157 (ON CA), 64 O.R. (3d) 191, at para. 16.

48It is well established that capacity may fluctuate and advanced age alone does not amount to incapacity: see Knox v. Burton (2005), E.T.R. (3d) 27, at para. 2.

49Undue influence in the testamentary context requires proof that the testator's free will was overborne by coercion, domination, manipulation, or persistent pressure: see Kozak Estate (Re), 2018 ABQB 185.

50Influence arising from affection, persuasion, or family relationships is insufficient: see Scott v. Cousins, 2001 CarswellOnt 50, at paras. 112-114.

51The question is whether the resulting document expresses the testator's own wishes or those of another: Slover v. Rellinger, 2019 ONSC 6497, at para. 25.

52As set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Geffen v. Goodman Estate, 1991 CanLII 69 (SCC), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 353, influence refers to the ability of one person to dominate the will of another, whether through manipulation, coercion, or outright but subtle abuse of power. To dominate the will of another simply means to exercise a persuasive influence over him or her.

53In Vout, Justice Sopinka at para. 24 notes that to prove undue influence, the civil standard of proof on a balance of probability applies, and “the extent of the proof required is proportionate to the gravity of the suspicion and the degree of suspicion varies with the circumstances of each case.”

54Justice Sopinka continues at para. 29 and states that “it may be thought that proof of knowledge and approval will go a long way in disproving undue influence. Unquestionably there is an overlap. If it is established that the testator knew and appreciated what he was doing, in many cases there is little room for a finding that the testator was coerced.”

55At the same time in Vout, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that a person may well appreciate what he or she is doing but be doing it as a result of coercion or fraud.

56In Tate v. Gueguegirre, 2015 ONSC 844, at para. 9, the Divisional Court provided a useful list of factors that it found relevant when assessing if a will was the product of undue influence:

i. the increasing isolation of the testator;

ii. the testator’s dependence on the respondent;

iii. the substantial pre-death transfers of wealth from the testator to the respondent;

iv. the testator’s expressed yet apparently unfounded concerns that he was running out of money;

v. the testator’s failure to provide a reason or explanation for leaving his entire estate to the respondent and excluding his daughters from it;

vi. the material changes in circumstances between the time of the first Will from the time of the final Will that would undermine the testator’s earlier reasons for favouring his son in his Will;

vii. the move by the testator to Bobcaygeon, increasing his isolation and the control over him by the respondent;

viii. the circumstances of the making of the Will including:

a. using a lawyer previously unknown to the testator and chosen by the respondent;

b. the respondent conveying instructions to the lawyer concerning the contents of the Will;

c. the respondent apparently receiving a draft of the Will before it was executed by the testator and then the respondent taking the testator to the lawyer to sign the Will;

ix. the testator’s documented statements that he was afraid of the respondent.

57The concept of “influence” was considered in Geffen at p. 377, where that court stated:

It seems to me rather that when one speaks of "influence" one is really referring to the ability of one person to dominate the will of another, whether through manipulation, coercion, or outright but subtle abuse of power. ... To dominate the will of another simply means to exercise a persuasive influence over him or her. The ability to exercise such influence may arise from a relationship of trust or confidence but it may arise from other relationships as well.

58In Roe v. Roe, 2024 ONCA 179, at para. 18, the Court of Appeal for Ontario referenced the above factors in Tate as helpful but stressed that “there is no set list of considerations that must be considered in all cases when considering an allegation of undue influence. Instead, the analysis of the issue is case specific and should examine the circumstances to understand the nature of the relationship between the alleged influencer and the deceased.”

Passing of Accounts

59In Dzelme v. Dzelme, 2018 ONCA 1018, at para 7, the court notes the factors to take into account in exercising its discretion to order passing of accounts:

a. the extent of the attorney’s involvement in the grantor’s financial affairs

b. whether the applicant has raised a significant concern in respect of the management of the grantor’s affairs to warrant an accounting.

Analysis

Testamentary Capacity – Josephine and Michael Dawson

60The applicants bear the burden of demonstrating lack of testamentary capacity. They have not discharged that burden. The strongest evidence before the court regarding Josephine's and Michael’s capacity comes from independent professionals. Dr. Adetola provided opinions relied upon by Mr. Farnand both in April 2017 and December 2017.

61Mr. Farnand independently assessed Josephine and Michael while taking instructions and witnessing the execution of the documents. He met with them on multiple occasions and was able to confirm their instructions.

62Importantly, Dr. Sarazin assessed Josephine in August 2018 and concluded she retained testamentary capacity. Dr. Oroz likewise found Josephine competent in April 2018.

63While there is evidence of confusion, delirium, and cognitive vulnerability, that evidence does not establish that Josephine lacked testamentary capacity in April or December 2017. The evidence instead demonstrates a woman whose functioning was declining but who nevertheless remained capable of understanding the nature and consequences of testamentary decisions.

64The issue concerning Michael is more difficult. Dr. Sarazin determined in August 2018 that Michael lacked capacity at that time. However, capacity must be assessed at the time the documents were executed. There is no retrospective expert opinion before the court establishing that Michael lacked testamentary capacity in April 2017 or December 2017. It is well known that there is a presumption of capacity and that the applicants bore the burden of proving incapacity.

65Mr. Farnand’s evidence again assumes considerable importance. He met with Michael and Josephine privately. He sought and received medical confirmation, particularly in December 2017 when Josephine and Michael attended in the presence of Dr. Adetola who provided a capacity letter dated December 12, 2017. He was satisfied that Josephine and Michael could provide instructions.

66The applicants’ evidence establishes vulnerability and decline, but not incapacity. The distinction is critical. Advanced age, illness, dependency, and susceptibility to influence are not equivalent to testamentary incapacity.

67On the totality of the evidence, I am not satisfied that the applicants have proven that either Josephine or Michael lacked testamentary capacity when the wills and POAs were signed in April 2017 and the same applies to the amendment of the documents in December 2017.

Undue Influence

68My findings regarding capacity do not determine the issue of undue influence. As Vout v. Hay recognizes, an individual may understand what he or she is doing and yet act under coercion or domination. In my view, this is such a case.

69Undue influence is a subtle thing, almost always exercised in secret, and usually provable only by circumstantial evidence: see Atkinson on Wills (2d edition, 1953), page 638.

70The undue influence evidence in this case is extensive and cumulative. It does not rest upon a single incident. Rather, it reveals a longstanding pattern of domination by Anthony that intensified after April 2017. I highlight this date because of the wills and POAs that were prepared in April 2017. As set out below, while there are questions surrounding the reasons leading up to April 2017 given to Mr. Farnand, the true evidence of undue influence did not exist at that date to the extent that those testamentary decisions could be questioned. At that point, Sheila was still a beneficiary under the wills and still involved in her parents’ lives.

71Multiple witnesses have described Anthony as aggressive, overbearing, and intimidating toward his parents. The evidence came not only from Sheila, Rachel and Gary but also from the neighbours and other witnesses. The neighbours’ evidence is particularly persuasive because it comes from individuals not directly involved in the family dispute but it clearly describes Anthony as being abusive towards his parents and how he would yell and scream at them.

72When considering Rachel’s evidence, she states how Anthony developed a bullish behaviour with the family by being loud and aggressive while her grandparents mostly remained silent. She recounts an incident in 2004 when he was challenged by Sheila on the company he was keeping at the time which triggered an angry outburst and he aggressively stated that she was no longer his sister. This transpired in the presence of his parents who remained silent.

73The applicants’ evidence is corroborated by Josephine’s and Michael’s immediate neighbour, Margo den Hann, at their residence at 24 Lansfield Way. Ms. den Hann described her conversations with Josephine in early 2017 about how helpful Sheila and Gary were. Ms. den Hann noted how Sheila and Gary were frequently at the Dawson home, working in the yard and spending lengthy periods of time in the house. They took the Dawsons to medical appointments.

74Beginning in June 2017, things changed and Sheila and Gary were no longer coming around. She referenced incidents of yelling and humiliation by Anthony directed toward Josephine and Michael. There is a significant amount of hearsay evidence in Ms. den Hann’s affidavit, such as Josephine advising Ms. den Hann that Anthony had told her that Gary had been stealing from them over the past few months. I appreciate that this is hearsay evidence and would normally not be admissible. However, with the full knowledge of the allegations made by Sheila, Josephine never contradicted these hearsay statements despite being a party to this litigation for several years. There was ample opportunity to contradict Ms. den Hann’s statements but this still does not change that they are hearsay statements. Interestingly, Ms. den Hann was not cross-examined on her affidavits and the significant negative statements she makes about Anthony.

75Ms. den Hann repeated the statement by Josephine that Anthony told her that Gary was stealing from them while Josephine was in the hospital in the fall of 2017. Neither Josephine nor Anthony has contradicted this statement. Once again, this statement was not challenged.

76In January 2018, Ms. den Hann became so concerned about Anthony’s isolation of his parents that she called the Ottawa Police Service Elder Abuse Unit and filed a report. Shortly thereafter, Anthony left a number of aggressive messages on Ms. den Hann’s answering machine stating that he would find out who called the police.

77Sharon and Kenneth Gehrels described similar observations about things that Josephine would have said about Anthony. Many of the references are undated but are consistent in saying that the relationship between Anthony and his parents was strained as opposed to the relationship with Sheila and Gary which was very positive. Anthony was described as being abusive towards his parents. The Gehrels were not cross-examined.

78Overall, I accept that Anthony exercised a dominant personality within the family dynamic for many years and that he would become very aggressive when challenged. Anthony has not disputed this to any great extent. But more than that, I accept that Anthony was abusive with his parents at times and that he was aggressive with them on numerous occasions.

79Turning to the issue of vulnerability, there is no doubt that by 2017 both parents were elderly. Their health was deteriorating. They were increasingly dependent upon others. Josephine had experienced episodes of delirium and confusion, and Michael's functioning had also diminished. The affidavit of Ms. den Hann reflects much of this. Although these conditions do not establish incapacity, they greatly increased susceptibility to influence. Vulnerability is a central consideration in the undue influence analysis of this case.

80I turn now to the issue of isolation which is of particular concern. I accept the applicants’ evidence that a dramatic change occurred immediately after the execution of the April 2017 POAs. Longstanding relationships abruptly deteriorated. The locks were changed on the Dawsons’ home. Attendance at church for social interaction stopped. Communication was restricted. Hospital information was withheld. Information about the relocation of the parents to a retirement residence was not shared. Contact became subject to Anthony's approval.

81Several incidents stand out:

a. Josephine reportedly told Sheila that Anthony instructed her not to speak to Sheila.

b. Anthony allegedly told Sheila she should never speak with Josephine again.

c. Rachel was told that communication with the grandparents had to proceed through Anthony.

d. Anthony stated during a recorded conversation that he decided who visited and who did not.

82At times, the documents suggest that Anthony would indicate that he was relying on the advice of physicians in the way he isolated his parents, such as during the hospital attendance in the fall of 2017. However, no supporting documentation was presented that there was ever any medical advice that visits from Sheila or others should be restricted. Anthony took it upon himself to decide.

83These incidents are difficult to reconcile with the concept of free and independent decision-making by Josephine and Michael. However, many of these statements are clearly hearsay and I must weigh them carefully. In the end, the tone of these statements is corroborated by the statements that are made about Anthony. He has not denied the flavour of those statements, but he maintains that it was the wish of his parents.

84I turn now to coercion. This is a factor in this analysis that causes significant concern. I begin with the reasons given by Mr. Farnand for the preparation of the POAs, the wills and the transfer of ownership of the Dawsons’ home. Mr. Farnand’s memorandum dated April 27, 2017, acknowledges that his communications would have been through Anthony until he met the parents in person on April 25, 2017, and provided them with a draft of their new wills and powers of attorney. These documents would likely have been prepared at Anthony’s direction and confirmed with the parents. Further, the memorandum highlights how “[h]e and his parents are very concerned about the actions of his sister Sheila and her husband Gary Knight.” Clearly, the information received by Mr. Farnand was originating from Anthony.

85The memorandum makes reference to the surreptitious signature of a Financial POA two years ago. In evidence during these proceedings, it has been shown that these POAs were created in 2014 and witnessed at Josephine and Michael’s TD Canada Trust Bank. How could POAs signed in the presence of bank employees have been prepared surreptitiously by Sheila, three years earlier? This is clearly a fabrication.

86The memorandum goes on to highlight how the parents were particularly incensed that their son-in-law Gary Knight invited himself to make unauthorized renovations to their house and then charged them for it. The memorandum goes on to suggest that the parents believed that their phones may be bugged and that they are being financially taken advantage of. Also, clearly fabrications for which no supporting evidence was provided.

87When considering the work performed by Gary, the evidence shows that he provided a detailed invoice for the work done to construct the deck. The work was performed two years prior in June and July 2015. There is no independent documentation that suggests that the parents were ever “incensed” about being charged for the work or that it would have been unauthorized. This is also completely inconsistent with the evidence of the applicants and the neighbours about the nature of the relationship between the parents and Sheila and Gary from July 2015 leading up to 2017. However, in April of 2017, almost two years after the work was done, formally invoiced and paid by four separate cheques, Mr. Farnand is presented with the fact that the parents are incensed with this now dated event. There is no logical explanation for how the work performed by Gary in 2015 now becomes the focus of the change in power of attorney and the new wills other than as a fabrication and persuasion by Anthony.

88The applicants characterize this conduct as a deliberate campaign of isolation and coercive control. The example of how Anthony influenced his parents’ beliefs and came to distrust Sheila and Gary is alarming. The evidence shows that Anthony and Gary had a history of confrontations. Neither seemed to like the other. However, the evidence from the neighbours shows that Gary was appreciated by the parents before April 2017 and that he was a welcome visitor to their home. He provided many unpaid services along with Sheila. He provided construction services for the parents over the years and in 2015, he provided the invoice for the deck. Evidence of the satisfaction with that work was that the parents wrote four separate checks payable to Gary. For close to two years, there is no indication of any frustration by the parents for the work or the fact that they were charged. Leading into the April 2017 meetings to change their wills and powers of attorney, their impressions of Gary came to change and the parents’ were brought to believe that Gary had performed unauthorized work to the parents’ home and it formed an important part in having the parents believe that Sheila had done them wrong. They were also told that he was stealing from them.

89When considering the totality of the evidence, the pattern is clear that Anthony took active steps to sabotage Sheila’s relationship with her parents and particularly her relationship with Josephine. However, by April 2017, the evidence does not allow for a finding of undue influence. There are indicia, but certainly not evidence that is sufficient to invalidate the April 2017 wills.

90The period from April 2017 to December 2017 is then of more concern. Once Anthony becomes the attorney, he changes the locks to the home. In May 2017, he accuses Sheila of upsetting her mother and threatens to bring the matter to the attention of the Crown Attorney. The parents were isolated from both Sheila and Rachel to the extent that no visit could take place without his approval. Staff at the retirement residence were told to call Anthony when Sheila would attend and he would then show up shortly after.

91Moving on to Josephine’s hospitalization in the fall of 2017, Anthony takes the position that he decides who could visit with their parents and that Sheila was an “unfamiliar face” and that her visit would upset them. He claimed that it was the “subspecialists view on not having confusing people around and only people who are familiar faces who have been there in the recent past and they recognize.” No corroboration of this medical advice was ever presented in evidence.

92I am of the view that the sole reason that Sheila would now have become an unfamiliar face, if at all, is because Anthony had restricted access to his parents, isolated them from family, friends and church and had influenced their beliefs to thinking that Gary had stolen from them and that Sheila had taken financial advantage of them.

93On this last point of Sheila taking financial advantage of the parents, Sheila’s accounting of her expenses while acting as attorney for property was filed with the court and there is no suggestion from Anthony that the accounting provided raised any particular red flags. Once again, I believe that the notion that Sheila was taking financial advantage of her parents is a fabrication by Anthony to exclude Sheila from his parent’s lives.

94When I turn to the December 2017 testamentary changes, I see several red flags. Once again, Josephine and Michael attend at Mr. Farnand’s office with Anthony having set things up in advance. As Mr. Farnand admitted to having never spoken to his clients over the telephone, it is clear that the instructions for the new wills and POAs came from Anthony. The memorandum of December 12, 2017, confirms this. The first reason stated in the memorandum for removing Sheila as a beneficiary and alternate attorney is that she has not been there to help them out as she lives in Aylmer, Quebec and whereas Anthony had been their primary caregiver. This statement is of particular concern to the court since the reason Sheila had not been around was because Anthony had isolated his parents from Sheila and prevented her from contacting them.

95Reading on through the memorandum, the grounds to remove Sheila as a beneficiary continue to be focused on Gary. They were still apparently incensed that he had conducted unauthorized renovations to their house two years prior without any evidence to show where that belief originated.

96What is also troubling is that the parents were persuaded, as justification for removing Sheila as a beneficiary, to have Anthony be the sole decider of any entitlement from the parents’ estate. This was also intended to care for Rachel. However, there is no indication that Mr. Farnand was aware of the nature of the relationship between Anthony and Sheila. It is hard to imagine how it could be comforting to Josephine and Michael to think that Anthony would use proper judgment in deciding if Sheila and Rachel would be entitled to a share of their estate. The creation of this Henson Trust, which was subject to Anthony’s sole discretion, is another sign of how Josephine and Michael were manipulated into thinking that Anthony would care for Sheila and Rachel despite their severely strained relationship. I am of the view that such a decision would not have been made had Josephine been properly aware of the poor relationship between Anthony and Sheila, and the numerous threats made by Anthony and directed at Sheila. Clearly, Anthony did not communicate this to his parents and made them believe that he would take care of his sister and niece.

97I conclude that the information given to Mr. Farnand by Josephine and Michael was clearly the product of Anthony’s undue influence over his parents. He created a belief in his parents that Sheila had taken financial advantage of them, that Gary had stolen from them and forced them to pay for unauthorized work, he isolated them from Sheila and then used that as one of the main reasons why Sheila should be removed from the will because she was no longer caring for them. All of this was created by Anthony.

98The progression of events is significant. In April 2017, Anthony became attorney. Thereafter he increasingly controlled access to the parents and isolated them from Sheila and Rachel. By December 2017, Anthony was positioned as the central gatekeeper in his parents’ lives. The main reason the parents cite to change their wills is that Sheila is no longer looking after them, a situation created solely by Anthony. The testamentary changes ultimately benefited him substantially.

99Finally, the court is left perplexed as to why Josephine never participated in these proceedings. She could have put an end to all of this by confirming that Sheila was wrong. She could have supported Anthony and made herself available to be questioned as to the reasons for excluding Sheila as a beneficiary. She never did. Was this tacit support for Anthony? Was it a fear of stating a position that contradicted Anthony, her sole provider? On this last point, the court can make no findings. The question remains unanswered. The applicants have stated that there is no independent documentation by Josephine or Michael that suggests that they wanted to exclude Sheila from their lives. Even the cease and desist letter written by Mr. Farnand in April 2018 was based on instructions provided by Anthony and not the parents although counter-signed. All of this stems from the influence Anthony maintained over his parents.

100Looking at the totality of the evidence, no single fact proves undue influence. The Court of Appeal for Ontario has stated that we must evaluate the whole of the evidence and focus on the nature of the relationship between Anthony and his parents. In doing so, I highlight the following:

a. There is clear evidence of Anthony’s behaviour within the family dynamics. He is loud and aggressive at family functions, he becomes angered when challenged by Sheila, and he looks for conflict in dealing with Gary. In this regard, I accept the evidence of Sheila, Rachel, and Gary which was in large part unaddressed by Anthony.

b. There is evidence of how Anthony treated his parents in the note written by Michael where he describes how Anthony reacted when he sought repayment of an outstanding loan. This is indicia of how Anthony bullied his parents and swore at them.

c. I also accept the independent evidence of the neighbours who were able to witness Anthony’s aggressive behaviour towards his parents and the aggressive manner that he acted when Ms. den Hann visited Josephine in the hospital. I also accept Ms. den Hann’s evidence of how Anthony isolated his parents and restricted access to them.

d. I find that Anthony was the source of fabricating the information that led to the wills and POA changes in December 2017. He coerced his parents to believe that Sheila and Gary were financially abusing them and stealing from them without showing any proof to substantiate that belief. He never ended up challenging Sheila’s actions as the attorney for property from 2014 to 2017. He then used the fact that he isolated his parents from Sheila as the main reason to have her removed from the will when his parents believed that she was no longer there for them.

e. I find that Anthony was dishonest with his parents in making them believe that he would care for Sheila and Rachel and that they could trust that he would use his discretion to provide her with a share of their estate as he deemed reasonable. Both Josephine and Michael were under a mistaken belief when they agreed to the Hanson Trust in the December 2017 will change.

101When the evidence is viewed cumulatively, several features emerge:

a. longstanding intimidation;

b. elderly and vulnerable parents;

c. increasing dependence;

d. systematic isolation from family and friends;

e. control over information and access;

f. false allegations communicated about family members;

g. concentration of authority in Anthony; and

h. testamentary outcomes strongly favouring Anthony.

102I find that these circumstances establish more than persuasion. They establish domination and coercion. The applicants have proven on a balance of probabilities that Anthony’s influence over Josephine and Michael overbore their independent decision-making. I therefore conclude that the December 2017 wills were procured through undue influence by Anthony over his parents.

103Having found that the applicants established undue influence but failed to establish lack of testamentary capacity, the court must determine the appropriate remedy. The finding of undue influence is sufficient to invalidate the December 2017 wills and POAs.

104Nothing in these reasons should be taken as a finding that Josephine or Michael lacked testamentary capacity. To the contrary, I specifically find that lack of testamentary capacity was not established.

Passing of Accounts

105The last step in this analysis requires that I decide if Anthony must pass his accounts for the period that he has acted as attorney pursuant to the financial powers of attorney signed in April 2017.

106As a result of my decision to invalidate the December 2017 wills, the governing document now becomes Michael’s April 2017 will that name Sheila as a 50% beneficiary.

107As previously stated, the analysis when contemplating an order for a Passing of Accounts calls for the consideration of:

a. the extent of the attorney’s involvement in the grantor’s financial affairs

b. whether the applicant has raised a significant concern in respect of the management of the grantor’s affairs to warrant an accounting.

108The evidence provided by the applicants has clearly established that after being named attorney for property in April 2017, Anthony took control of his parents’ finances and was transferring significant amounts of money to his account to cover his parents’ expenses. The bank statements reflect a significant increase in the number of transactions and the amounts being spent over the preceding months.

109In addition, the analysis provided by the applicants cannot be ignored as it suggests a shortfall in the reporting of $244,000. While I make no finding on the accuracy of that figure, it is certainly sufficient to raise a significant concern in respect of the management of Josephine and Michael’s financial affairs.

110This is particularly the case now that Sheila is a 50% beneficiary in Michael’s estate. Clearly, she has an interest to ensure that all the amount spent prior to her parents’ death was properly for the benefit of her parents.

111Anthony is therefore ordered to pass his accounts for the period beginning in April 2017 until Michael’s death.

Conclusion

112The application is allowed in part. The applicants have not established a lack of testamentary capacity. The court declares that the applicants have established undue influence in relation to the wills and POAs executed in December 2017. Those wills are set aside, and Anthony is ordered to pass his accounts.

Costs

113The parties are encouraged to resolve the issue of costs. If they are unable to do so, they may make written costs submissions. The applicants will have 20 days to serve and file their written costs submissions, and the respondent will have 20 days to respond. The applicant will have a brief right of reply within seven days. Each submission will be a maximum of 3 pages plus attachments.

JUSTICE MARC R. LABROSSE

Date: July 21, 2026

CITATION: Dawson et al v. Dawson et al, 2026 ONSC 4215

COURT FILE NO.: CV-18-00077001-0000

DATE: 2026/07/21

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

RE: Sheila Maria Dawson and Rachel Harris, (Applicants)

AND

Estate of Josephine Dawson, Deceased, by the litigation administrator, Miriam Vale Peters, Estate of Michael Dawson, Deceased, by the litigation administrator, Miriam Vale Peters, and Anthony Vikram Dawson, (Respondents)