Canadian court orders carer to repay estate “gifted” money

Upon the death of William Waters (the deceased), his estate trustees discovered that over ten years he had given Gillian Henry, his wife’s care worker, more than CAD30 million. The court heard that the deceased was careful with his money and very financially astute.

The deceased was married for 53 years to Phyliss Waters, having no children or family other than his wife’s sister. His wife, now 85, is reclusive, suffers from chronic pain and requires daily care. The cost of her care is approximately CAD32,000 per month plus accommodation expenses.

The court heard that the deceased controlled his wife’s money via power of attorney and “dissipated nearly all” of her CAD5.4 million savings. The deceased and Henry entered into a romantic relationship, with the deceased providing her with significant sums of money beyond her wage as his wife’s carer. The money was used to buy property, cars, jewellery, trips and clothes.

Per the deceased’s will, his wife was to receive a life interest in the estate with the remainder after her death to go to 23 charitable institutions. By the time of the trial, the estate was left with only CAD580,000.

The court noted that the deceased gave Henry CAD2.85 million of his wife’s money, holding that Henry was not entitled to keep this money on three legal bases.

First, it found that the deceased had no right or power to gift his wife’s money and so there was “no legitimate donative intent.” Henry therefore could not overcome the presumption of a resulting trust.

Second, the court noted that as her power of attorney for property and care-giver, the deceased and Henry respectively had fiduciary duty to the wife and their actions were “unconscionable.” It found that “in circumstances such as this, the doctrine of equitable fraud would prevent the retention of the money by [Henry].”

Finally, the court found that the estate had established a case of unjust enrichment, ruling that there was no juristic reason for Henry to have received money from the wife.

“It is recognised by all parties that [the wife] has little money to take care of her needs, which are in excess of CAD32,000 a month,” the judge commented. “Given the near destitute position of [the wife] and the need for her care, [the deceased] had a responsibility to manage her money to meet those care needs. He failed to do that, and the Estate now owes [the wife] CAD5.4 million. I have concluded CAD2.85 million went to benefit [Henry].”

It concluded that Henry could not have expected the deceased to provide her with his wife’s money, and so it would be “unconscionable” if that money were not returned to the estate to provide for the wife’s care. Accordingly, the court ordered Henry to repay CAD2.85 million to the estate (The Estate of William Robert Waters v Gillian Henry et al, 2024 ONSC 4190).

Sources

• CanLII
• Hull & Hull