In a comprehensive decision released on November 18, 2025, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has dismissed a lawsuit brought against the founders of a private Catholic retreat in Lanark, Ontario1. The case centered on allegations of financial misappropriation involving an elderly resident who had lived at the Canadian Divine Mercy Centre for over a decade. Justice Somji ruled that the application brought by the resident’s daughter was not only statute-barred under the Limitations Act but also lacked merit, finding no evidence that the founders had acted improperly or taken advantage of the resident. The court found that the resident, Catherine Rozon, was capable of making her own financial decisions throughout her stay and had voluntarily contributed her funds to her living expenses, medical needs, and the religious community she had chosen to join.
The origins of the dispute date back to 2009 when Catherine Rozon, then 65 years old, voluntarily moved to the Canadian Divine Mercy Centre. The Centre is a non-profit corporation situated on large acreage in Lanark, founded by Willy and Theresa Effinger. The facility offers visitors a place for religious education and contemplation. Full-time residents, including the Effingers and Ms. Rozon, traditionally take a vow of poverty and commit themselves to a life of prayer. Ms. Rozon, a breast cancer survivor seeking a more contemplative existence, initially lived in the main building before requesting to move into a private cabin on the property in 2011.
Life at the Centre required financial contributions from its residents. Ms. Rozon paid for the costs of renovating and winterizing her cabin, including the installation of insulation, siding, heating, and air conditioning. She also paid for the construction of a privacy fence, a patio, and a garden. In addition to these capital improvements, Ms. Rozon paid a monthly fee ranging from $600 to $1,000 to cover her lodgings, food, heat, hydro, telephone, and transportation. The court record indicates that she also made voluntary donations to support the Centre’s maintenance and operations.
The situation became more complex in 2016 when Ms. Rozon’s breast cancer returned. At the age of 71, she underwent a mastectomy but chose to remain at the Centre during her treatment and convalescence. Due to her illness and desire for a quiet life, Ms. Rozon began relying more heavily on the Effingers and another resident, Sister Lynn Crosson, to assist with daily tasks. This assistance included driving her to medical appointments and running errands. Ms. Rozon would frequently provide her bank card and PIN to Sister Theresa or Sister Lynn to purchase groceries, medications, and other necessities on her behalf.
In September 2021, after Ms. Rozon had resided at the Centre for twelve years, her daughter Pauline McGrath became concerned about her mother’s declining health. Ms. McGrath retrieved her mother from the Centre and subsequently began reviewing her mother’s financial records. Ms. McGrath alleged that she discovered discrepancies in her mother’s TD Canada Trust and Tangerine bank accounts spanning from September 2011 to September 2021. She noted various withdrawals and expenses, including payments to pharmacies and department stores, as well as cash withdrawals totaling approximately $78,000 over the decade.
Nearly three years after removing her mother from the Centre, Ms. McGrath commenced legal proceedings on July 2, 2024. Acting under a Continuing Power of Attorney for Property granted by her mother in December 2023, Ms. McGrath sought a court order requiring the Effingers to pass their accounts. She alleged that the Effingers had misappropriated funds estimated at $260,000 and sought restitution for unjust enrichment. The applicant argued that the Effingers acted as “trustees de son tort,” a legal term describing someone who takes it upon themselves to act as a trustee without a formal appointment, thereby assuming the fiduciary duties of a trustee.
The Effingers vigorously defended themselves against these allegations. They filed a motion to strike the claim, arguing that Ms. McGrath lacked standing to bring the application and that the claim was filed after the expiry of the two-year limitation period. Furthermore, they argued that the application should be dismissed on its merits because they never held power of attorney for Ms. Rozon, never acted as her trustees, and never misappropriated any funds. They maintained that they assisted Ms. Rozon strictly at her request and as friends within their religious community.
A significant procedural issue arose regarding Ms. Rozon’s capacity. While Ms. McGrath initially suggested her mother had become childlike, she later admitted prior to the hearing that her mother was a capable person. The applicant did not file an affidavit from Ms. Rozon herself to substantiate the claims of theft or mismanagement. Instead, the court relied on affidavits from the Effingers, Sister Lynn, and a long-time friend of Ms. Rozon, Sandra Lalonde, all of whom attested to Ms. Rozon’s intelligence, lucidity, and capacity to make her own decisions throughout her residency.
Justice Somji first addressed the issue of standing. The court had to determine if Ms. McGrath could bring the lawsuit on behalf of her capable mother. The court examined the Continuing Power of Attorney for Property document signed in December 2023. The judge noted that the document explicitly stated it was a continuing power of attorney and that it came into effect on the date of execution. Consequently, the court found that Ms. McGrath did have the legal standing to commence the proceedings as her mother’s litigation guardian, even though Ms. Rozon remained capable.
However, the application faced a fatal hurdle regarding the timing of the lawsuit. Under the Limitations Act, a legal proceeding must be commenced within two years of the claim being discovered. Ms. McGrath had reviewed her mother’s bank statements by February 2022 at the latest and had sent a demand letter to the Effingers in August 2023 alleging misappropriation. Despite this, she did not file the application until July 2024, which was five months past even the most generous calculation of the limitation period. The applicant attempted to argue that a request for the passing of accounts is not a “claim” subject to the Limitations Act, citing previous case law. Justice Somji rejected this argument, distinguishing the present case because Ms. McGrath was not merely asking for an accounting but was actively seeking damages for unjust enrichment and a declaration of wrongdoing. Therefore, the court ruled the application was statute-barred.
Despite ruling that the case was filed too late, Justice Somji proceeded to analyze the merits of the allegations to provide a complete decision. The court found no evidence to support the claim that the Effingers were in a fiduciary relationship that would require them to account for Ms. Rozon’s funds. There was no tenancy agreement designating them as landlords, and they were not professional caregivers hired by the family. Their assistance with banking, shopping, and tax returns was performed as friends and community members aiding an elderly resident who preferred a reclusive life.
The court accepted the detailed evidence provided by the respondents regarding Ms. Rozon’s spending. The Effingers explained that the withdrawals and purchases were made at Ms. Rozon’s specific direction. These expenses included substantial costs for renovating her private cabin, purchasing furniture like a rocking chair and mattress, and buying gifts for her family. Furthermore, following the recurrence of her cancer, Ms. Rozon incurred significant medical expenses. She opted for treatment at a private alternative cancer clinic in Ottawa, which required payment for services and specialty medications not covered by provincial health insurance. She also adopted a specific diet involving raw and whole foods, which increased her grocery costs.
The applicant’s theory that her mother should have accumulated over $260,000 in savings was dismantled by the court’s financial analysis. Justice Somji noted that Ms. Rozon arrived at the Centre with very limited savings, having only about $1,000 in her Tangerine account in 2011. With a monthly retirement income of $2,685, it would have been mathematically impossible for her to save the amount alleged by her daughter while covering her living expenses, medical bills, and voluntary charitable contributions. The judge remarked that Ms. Rozon appeared to live within her means and continued her habit of charitable giving, which was her right as a capable adult.
The court also highlighted the lack of evidence from Ms. Rozon herself. The judge agreed with the respondents that Ms. Rozon would have been in the best position to explain the banking transactions. In the absence of her testimony, the consistent evidence from those who lived with her described a woman who was sharp, independent in her decision-making, and happy with her life at the Centre. Affidavits from community members painted a picture of a woman who took pride in her cabin and her contributions to the Centre, rather than a vulnerable victim of financial abuse.
Justice Somji concluded that the applicant failed to establish that the Effingers were trustees de son tort or constructive trustees. The court found that the Effingers did not take unauthorized control of Ms. Rozon’s property. While Sister Theresa assisted with tax returns and held the bank card for safekeeping, these actions were limited in scope and done under Ms. Rozon’s supervision. The court emphasized that a finding of a trust relationship requires more than just assistance with tasks; it requires evidence that the respondents took it upon themselves to administer the property, which was not the case here.
In dismissing the application, the court noted that there were no grounds to exercise its discretion to order a passing of accounts. The judge found no evidence of significant concerns regarding the management of Ms. Rozon’s affairs that could be attributed to the Effingers. The allegations of misappropriation were unsupported by the financial reality of Ms. Rozon’s income and expenses. The court ultimately found in favor of Willy and Theresa Effinger, dismissing the application in its entirety. As the successful party, the Effingers were deemed presumptively entitled to their legal costs, with the court encouraging the parties to reach a resolution on the specific amount.
Read more Ontario legal news here.
