Powers of Attorney (POAs) are meant to be protective tools, allowing trusted individuals to make decisions for someone who can no longer manage their property or personal care. But what happens when these documents are signed under pressure, or when a vulnerable adult is persuaded into handing over control to someone who may not have their best interests in mind?
The Ontario Superior Court recently tackled this issue in BMO Trust v. Aubin (2025 ONSC 2298). The case involved Patricia Roper, an 82-year-old widow with declining health and cognitive issues. By 2020, she was experiencing paranoia, delusions, and memory problems, leading to a psychiatric assessment and hospitalization. Around this time, she met a senior care worker at a company operated by Aubin’s common-law partner (the “Company”).
In March 2021, Roper signed a caregiver agreement with the Company, and by 2023, she owed the company over $190,000. Just months later, in August 2021, she signed new POAs naming the care worker as her attorney for property and personal care. The care worker used forms she had downloaded and completed herself, even though Ms. Roper had previously executed POAs in 2020 in favour of her lawyer.
Several red flags emerged. Ms. Roper made large, unexplainable withdrawals from her accounts, and even indicated a willingness to help the care worker and her partner buy a house. Staff at the Company and her lawyer raised concerns about undue influence and financial impropriety. In 2022, a capacity assessment concluded that Ms. Roper was incapable of granting or revoking POAs or managing her property.
These suspicious circumstances prompted formal intervention. The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) stepped in, and a trust company was appointed as Roper’s guardian of property. BMO applied to the court to determine two key questions: whether the POAs naming the care worker were valid, and whether Ms. Roper had any financial liability to the care worker or the Company under the caregiving agreement.
The Courts Findings:
The court found the POAs invalid and also found that the contracts entered into by Ms. Roper were invalid. The court emphasized that the law requires more than just a signature to establish validity of a document. For a POA or caregiving agreement to stand, the person signing must have both the mental capacity to understand what they are agreeing to, and the freedom to make that choice without pressure or manipulation. Where either element is missing, the document can be struck down.
The court also highlighted a conflict of interest under section 46(3) of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, which prevents an individual from acting as an attorney for personal care if they are being paid to provide health, residential, or support services to the grantor—unless they are a spouse, partner, or family member. Although the care worker claimed she received no personal benefit, the court noted that her common-law partner, as the company’s sole director and shareholder, profited from Ms. Roper’s care, meaning that the care worker benefited indirectly as well.
As for the caregiver agreement with STC, the court held that the contract was void under section 2(3) of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, as there were reasonable grounds to believe Ms. Roper lacked capacity to enter into a contract in the first place. Apart from capacity, the court also found the caregiver agreement unenforceable on the separate ground of unconscionability. A contract crosses that line when there is a clear imbalance in bargaining power, a lack of transparency and undue influence that results in an unfair agreement.
However, the court noted that the Company could still seek payment for care provided on a quantum meruit basis, reflecting the reasonable value of the services rendered.
Overall, the court found the care worker’s actions to be reprehensible, and she was ordered to pay $45,000.00 for Ms. Roper’s legal costs.
Takeaways:
This case is a strong reminder that POAs have a fiduciary duty and must act in good faith. Financial abuse can be subtle and even harder to pinpoint when issues of capacity and undue influence arise. Appointing a trusted POA is a critical safeguard, and timely intervention is both possible and necessary to protect vulnerable individuals.
