Aug 18, 2026
Undue influence is a legal principle that addresses circumstances where someone coerces another to make a decision, most often arising in estate litigation. A finding of undue influence allows the Court to invalidate transfers of property or the execution of Wills or powers of attorney, on the basis that they were not the product of the executor, transferor, or grantor’s free will.
In my experience, undue influence is used loosely. ‘Influence’ is broad and, consequently, vague. The body of law that has emerged around undue influence is rife with terms that require significant interpretation (see “potential for domination” from Goodman v. Geffen, 1991 CanLII 69 SCC).
In the context of estate litigation, where disputes center so often upon the decisions of elderly folks, it is easy for disgruntled parties to advance their interests by alleging undue influence. Parties can rationalize their suspicions by referencing the vulnerability of seniors or conflating a loving familial relationship with nefarious ‘influence’. The result is that undue influence has become something of a one-size-fits-all allegation: one that is not as readily addressed as concerns about capacity may be through the production of medical records, or concerns about knowledge and approval through the production of a drafting solicitor’s file.
In a recent decision, Buffa v. Giacomelli, 2026 ONCA 566 (CanLII), the Ontario Court of Appeal considered the difference between ‘motive’ and ‘donative intent’ in the context of rebutting the presumption of resulting trust and the law of undue influence, with respect to inter-vivos gifts (“Buffa”). Here, the deceased Giuliana Buffa (the “Deceased”), shortly before her passing, had given her daughter, the Respondent on appeal (the “Respondent”), a total of $1.7 million. As a result, the inheritance of the Deceased’s son, the Appellant who was a 45% beneficiary of the Deceased’s estate (the “Appellant”), was substantially diminished.
The application judge made the following key findings:
- The Respondent had a very close and loving relationship with the Deceased. In contrast, the Appellant and the Deceased had been essentially estranged since 2019.
- The Deceased named the Respondent as a beneficiary of her RRIF and TFSA, which was accepted as “clear intention of a gift”.
- The Deceased opened multiple joint accounts with the Respondent in which she deposited the sale proceeds of her condominium and other amounts from her investment accounts.
- The Deceased wrote two gift letters addressing the transfer of funds into the joint accounts.
- The Respondent lived “400 kilometers away” from the Deceased’s residence.
- Although the Deceased suffered from dementia and other health issues near the end of her life, the disputed transfers occurred shortly before these health issues were diagnosed/worsened.
On appeal – and specifically on the issue of undue influence – the Appellant alleged that the application judge had failed to consider whether a presumption of undue influence arose, which would have shifted the burden of proof upon the Respondent. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the Appellant, and affirmed the manner in which an allegation of undue influence ought to be analyzed in the context of an inter-vivos gift:
- The onus of proving undue influence is on the party who asserts it.[1]
- A presumption of undue influence arises where an inter vivostransfer is made within a relationship in which there is an inherent “potential for domination”. This is found in relationships of dependency such as between parents and children or a solicitor and client.[2]
- Where the presumption is found to exist, the onus shifts upon the recipient of the gift, who must establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the transfer was made with the donor’s “full, free and informed thought”.[3]
- Implicit in the application and appellate decisions, Buffa is authority that the existence of a relationship of dependency on its face, does not automatically mean that there is a presumption of undue influence.[4]
On the final point, even though the Respondent:
- was the Deceased’s daughter,
- had been in close contact with the Deceased at the time of the transfers, and
- implemented some of the transfers herself as the Deceased’s attorney for property,
the application judge found that a presumption of undue influence could not apply, and the Court of Appeal agreed. The Court of Appeal found no basis to question that there was “no evidence that the respondent acted in any inappropriate manner to convince Giuliana to give her gifts, that the transfers were made with the “full approval and consent” of Giuliana who “made her own decisions with respect to her finances”, and that Giuliana freely and deliberately gave gifts to the respondent.
Buffa demonstrates that undue influence should not be alleged loosely. Even where there are traditional indicators of dependency/influence, establishing the presumption of undue influence is difficult – not to mention proving undue influence outright! – and parties should tread carefully before litigating these issues.
Matias Gutierrez
Nothing contained in this post constitutes legal advice or establishes a solicitor-client relationship. If you have any questions regarding your legal rights or legal obligations, you should consult a lawyer.
[1] Vout v. Hay, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 976, at p. 887; Neuberger Estate v. York, 2016 ONCA 191, 129 O.R. (3d) 721, at para. 78, leave to appeal refused, [2016] S.C.C.A. No. 207.
[2] Goodman Estate v. Geffen, 1991 CanLII 69 (SCC), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 353, at p. 378; Morreale v. Romanino, 2017 ONCA 359, 30 E.T.R. (4th) 21, at para. 22.
[3] Goodman Estate, at p. 379; Foley (Re), at para. 28.
[4] Buffa at para 38
Apr 23, 2026
As a mediator, I have seen the same dynamic play out in many power of attorney disputes. Sibling A swears that the parent suffering from dementia doesn’t trust Sibling B, and wants Sibling A to act as POA for property and personal care. Sibling B tells me the opposite: the parent is highly mistrustful of Sibling A and insists that Sibling B is the only one that can be trusted to make substitute decisions about finances and health care.
Most of the time, I believe both of them.
I try very hard in our caucus meetings to ask questions aimed at encouraging each of the parties to explore whether both things might be true. I am surprised at how closed litigants are to the possibility that Alzheimer’s disease is the true villain in the dispute.
According to the Alzheimer’s Association, “a person with Alzheimer’s may become suspicious of those around them, even accusing others of theft, infidelity or other improper behaviour”. [1] Yet, in power of attorney disputes, siblings are often unwilling to consider that the parent’s suspicions about their sibling might be unfounded.
Another feature of dementia is confabulation. It is a natural coping mechanism which happens when a dementia patient attempts to fill in missing gaps in their memory with things that are untrue. Rather than confronting the painful truth that the patient has no memory of that meeting with the lawyer or that discussion with Child A, the diseased brain protects the patient by supplying false memories.
Alzheimer’s disease lies to the people suffering from it. Dementia patients commonly experience anosognosia – the inability to recognize their own memory and cognitive deficits.
Logic would dictate that when a parent suffers from Alzheimer’s, and says two different things to two different people, the most likely explanation is that the disease has rendered the parent an unreliable narrator. And yet, so many siblings caught up in POA disputes immediately dismiss the disease as a possible contributor to the dispute. They confidently conclude that the only possible explanation is that their “evil sibling” is a liar.
Perhaps it is less painful to believe their sibling is lying (particularly a sibling they never got along with) than it is to accept that the disease has already progressed to the point that the parent’s words cannot be relied upon anymore. When a child has spent a lifetime looking to a parent for support, advice, care and judgment, it is difficult to accept that certain aspects of the relationship are now gone.
Many years of litigating and mediating these disputes have convinced me that litigation is a terrible way of resolving them. Once litigants reach the mediation stage, they have spent tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees, making them even more entrenched in the righteousness of their position. Too often the stumbling block to settling these cases is the sunk costs of the legal fees already spent.
I can’t help but wonder: What if the siblings had pursued mediation from the outset instead of going to court first? What if they had consulted dementia experts first before going to legal experts? What if they had focused on dementia as the enemy instead of their sibling?
Angela Casey
Nothing contained in this post constitutes legal advice or establishes a solicitor-client relationship. If you have any questions regarding your legal rights or legal obligations, you should consult a lawyer.
[1] https://www.alz.org/
Aug 8, 2025
This blog is part 2 of a series which started with this one: “Re-thinking Power of Attorney Litigation.”
My first modest suggestion for power of attorney (“POA”) litigation is to fully explore clients’ assumptions about the rights and powers of POAs before initiating litigation.
If the aggrieved party uses words like “power”, “in charge” and “control” when describing the role of a POA, rather than “duty”, “responsibility”, “accountability” and “service”, it is a sign that the person who wants the job doesn’t fully understand the role.
For example, I am shocked by the number of children who believe that as soon as the family home is sold and a parent enters a care setting, that is the time to divide up the house sale proceeds among themselves. They mistakenly think that the POA gets to decide how and when to divide up the parent’s money. Not so. The incapable person’s money must be carefully managed solely for the incapable person’s benefit during his or her lifetime.
Yes, that is true even if the nursing home costs will not exceed the incapable person’s income. Yes, that is true even if the children are all counting on their inheritance as a pathway to home ownership and would like to receive at least part of their inheritance early. Yes, that is true even if the parent’s dementia has progressed to the point that he or she would not even miss the house sale proceeds.
Another common reason litigants want to be “in charge” is the mistaken belief that a POA can make unilateral decisions without talking to anyone else. POA litigation usually involves high conflict families. The person who wants to be POA or Guardian of Property needs to understand that, if successful, there will be a duty to consult with supportive family members and friends of the incapable person, including the despised sibling.
The Substitute Decisions Act uses the word “consult” to describe this duty on substitute decision makers. This is different from informing after-the-fact. To do the job of POA correctly, the POA will need to share all information relevant to a substitute decision with the incapable person’s family members, then listen to their feedback and opinions before implementing a substitute decision. If you are unable or unwilling to communicate effectively with your immediate family members, you are not qualified for the job.
Before initiating POA litigation, I often refer clients to this helpful summary of the duties and obligations of Guardians of Property on the Public Guardian and Trustee’s website [1].
It is important to fully explore how taking on this 24/7 responsibility will impact the POA’s life. Vacations could be interrupted by a call from the nursing home. POAs will face practical problems like banks that won’t provide online access to bank accounts and paid caregivers who don’t work out. Tax returns to be filed, forms to be filled out, doctor and dentist appointments to be tracked, medications to be managed. The POA will ultimately be responsible to account to the beneficiaries of the incapable person’s estate, and possibly the Court, about every transaction during the POA period. A lost receipt could become a personal liability.
These duties and obligations should be fully explored before heading down the destructive and expensive path of POA litigation so that the client has eyes wide open about what “winning” entails.
[1] Most of the duties imposed on Guardians of Property are also applicable to fiduciaries acting under a power of attorney, the primary distinction being that a Guardian of Property will be obligated to act in accordance with a Management Plan and will have to pass accounts to the Public Guardian and Trustee by a particular deadline.
Angela Casey
Nothing contained in this post constitutes legal advice or establishes a solicitor-client relationship. If you have any questions regarding your legal rights or legal obligations, you should consult a lawyer.
Jun 18, 2025
I work all night, I work all day, to pay the bills I have to pay
Ain’t it sad?
And still there never seems to be a single penny left for me
That’s too bad…
My colleague Rebecca Suggitt previously blogged about the importance of keeping proper accounts as an attorney or guardian of property. One of the reasons she gave was that a guardian or attorney’s compensation is tied directly to the receipts and disbursements person under guardianship or attorneyship (who will be referred to as the “incapable person”).
Generally, the rule that applies to a guardian or attorney’s compensation is a charge of 3% on all receipts and disbursements in the guardianship or attorneyship accounts, per the regulations under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992. (For simplicity, I will use the term “fiduciary” to mean “guardian” or “attorney” for the remainder of this blog, but be aware that “fiduciary” is a broader term that is not limited to guardians or attorneys.)
The broad purpose of this 3% charge is to compensate fiduciaries for the work they do to manage the incapable person’s assets, such as paying their bills, purchasing necessities and personal items, and collecting and managing money from their sources of income.
However, like many legal principles, there are exceptions to this general rule. There are certain receipts and disbursements that the 3% charge should not be applied to. Below are a few commonly seen non-compensable transactions:
Transfers Between Accounts
People often own more than one bank or investment account. The fiduciary may need to move money from the savings to chequing account to pay the incapable person’s monthly bills, or decide to invest the excess funds in chequing account by moving it into an investment vehicle. These transfers will appear in the accounting as a disbursement (when the money leaves the original account) and a corresponding receipt (when the money is deposited into the second account). But, because the money is not leaving the guardianship/attorneyship to pay a third party, nor is new money coming in, these are not compensable transactions. They should be recorded in the accounting bookkeeping or “memo” transactions only.
Refunds
The accounts will reflect refunds, for instance, when items are returned to a store and a credit is issued back to the incapable person. The refunded money will appear in the accounting as a receipt. Since these receipts are not deposits of new money or income, they are not compensable transactions.
Capital Losses
Capital losses occur when an asset is sold for less than its adjusted cost base. The fiduciary may need to liquidate stocks, investments, or other assets because the incapable person needs cash to pay for their expenses. Capital losses appear in the accounting as disbursements. However, they are not true disbursements because no money leaves the guardianship or attorneyship to pay for a good or service. As such, they are non-compensable.
Compensation Paid to the Fiduciary
Fiduciaries are permitted to pay themselves compensation on a monthly, quarterly, or annual basis, pursuant to the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992. If so, the accounts will reflect compensation payments to the fiduciary throughout the period of accounting. As it would be duplicative for the fiduciary to pay themselves for paying themselves, these transactions are non-compensable.
How to Reflect Non-Compensable Transactions in the Calculation for Compensation
The value of these identified non-compensable transactions should be deducted from the value of total receipts and disbursements during the accounting period. After making all deductions, apply the 3% to the net receipts and disbursements to calculate the compensation.
Zara Wong
Nothing contained in this post constitutes legal advice or establishes a solicitor-client relationship. If you have any questions regarding your legal rights or legal obligations, you should consult a lawyer.
Oct 31, 2024
I begin with a rant. Power of attorney litigation is the worst. I am not talking here about the kind of litigation where there is an actual financial predator who has obtained a power of attorney through fraud and stolen money from a vulnerable person. That is properly a matter for the courts and the kind of case I derive great satisfaction in pursuing.
I am talking about the kind of power of attorney dispute where the sole issue is whether Johnny or Jane should act as attorney for property and personal care for their parent.
The usual fact pattern begins after the first parent dies. In the aftermath of Dad’s death, the entire family realizes how much Dad’s involvement had been masking Mom’s dementia symptoms. It becomes immediately apparent that Mom is struggling on her own – burning things on the stove, losing her license after a minor car accident, missing appointments, and having trouble with word finding.
Jane is the Responsible One. Jane was always the straight-A student, the rule follower, and the one her parents leaned on most in their senior years. Jane has a Big Job and a busy life with all the typical Type A supermom activities. Naturally, when her parents did their estate and capacity planning 20 years ago while both were well, Jane was selected as the attorney for personal care and finances.
Johnny, by contrast, was not successful in any traditional sense. He doesn’t have regular work, went through an ugly divorce such that he has no full-time parenting responsibilities, and suffered from a substance use disorder from which he has recovered. He has no financial security and does not own a home. As mothers do, Mom adores Johnny. Jane and Johnny do not get along.
Johnny moves in with Mom, which works for both of them. Mom spent the last 40 years of her life making this house exactly the home she wanted. Each knick knack is precious to her. She loves having Johnny around. Jane, however, sees Johnny’s care as substandard. In her view, Mom is not getting bathed or showered enough, Mom is spending too much time watching TV and not enough time doing enriching word puzzles. Jane read about the optimal Alzheimer’s diet and laments the processed food Mom and Johnny seem to be relying on. Mom’s nails and hair, which had always been immaculate, are dirty and unkempt.
As the attorney for personal care and property, Jane decides it would be best for Mom to move to a state-of-the-art memory care facility. Mom is happy living in her home with Johnny and doesn’t want to go. Jane believes that Mom is just not capable of making that decision anymore and ignores Mom’s pleas. Desperate, Mom sees a lawyer (she has no license, so Johnny takes her there) and signs new powers of attorney naming Johnny as her new attorney for personal care and property.
Jane lawyers up. Her lawyer tells her that because the new power of attorney documents were prepared when mom had dementia, a Court could find them invalid and then she would go back to being in charge. Johnny also gets a lawyer. Eventually, a judge also appoints a section 3 lawyer for Mom.
From Mom’s perspective, things become a nightmare. She reads pages of deeply embarrassing affidavit content drafted by Jane’s lawyer, including anecdotal evidence about the time that she couldn’t make it to the bathroom on time and had an accident at church, another about the traumatizing time she got lost. The affidavit evidence contains photos to show how dirty her hair is, how long her toenails are, and the spoiled food in her fridge. She feels an overwhelming sense of shame and embarrassment. She feels like every visit from Jane over the last few months was a trick designed to capture embarrassing video and photo evidence for Jane’s court case against her. The next time Jane comes to visit, Mom tells Johnny not to let Jane in.
The legal fees in these types of cases are breathtaking because lawyers take over all communications between Johnny and Jane, who no longer speak. Every petty grievance or detail of Mom’s life is aired out through letter exchanges between lawyers charging hundreds of dollars per hour.
For the price Jane is paying her lawyers, she could have paid for Mom to have weekly manicures and pedicures, twice-weekly blow-outs, a meal delivery service, weekly visits to the spa, and an Alzheimer’s day program a couple of times a week. But instead, Jane is obsessed with proving that her brother is a deadbeat getting “free rent” by staying in Mom’s house with her. Jane wants to be back in charge, and she wants a judge to confirm that she is the Good Daughter and Johnny is a Very Bad Son. By the point that they get to mediation, both sides have incurred tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
The legal fees then become the impediment to resolving the legal dispute. I have mediated many of these cases where the parties are able to resolve all the important issues – where Mom will live, what type of caregiving supports she will have – but the sole remaining issue is each side’s belief that the other side should pay legal costs. Having settled, it would be difficult to get a judge to decide the costs issue independently because the judge doesn’t have context to award costs to one side or the other without delving into all the issues that are now settled. In many cases, the fight continues and more costs are incurred just because neither side will cave or compromise on costs. And in a sad number of cases, the parent dies while the litigation is still unresolved.
Estate and capacity litigators, we need to find better ways of dealing with these issues. In my experience as section 3 counsel for many “Moms” in these cases, not once has the parent said to me, “I am so glad Jane brought this court case to get me the care I need.” Universally, the parent caught in the middle of the dispute says, “I love both my children equally. I want them to get along and I want this litigation to end.” To them, the litigation feels “stupid” (a direct quote from a section 3 client), embarrassing, damaging and incredibly stressful. In my next series of blogs, I am going to share some ideas about how we might change our approach to these kinds of disputes.
Angela Casey
Nothing contained in this post constitutes legal advice or establishes a solicitor-client relationship. If you have any questions regarding your legal rights or legal obligations, you should consult a lawyer.
