The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has intervened in a developing legal dispute involving allegations of financial misappropriation by a lawyer acting as an attorney for property for an elderly client1. In the case of Sullivan v. Culic, recently heard in December 2025, Justice Muszynski addressed a motion for interim relief brought by Kelly Sullivan regarding the management of her father’s significant financial estate. The court proceedings revealed a complex narrative of alleged self-dealing, aggressive banking interactions, and family conflict, culminating in a consent order that effectively strips a long-standing legal professional of his primary control over a vulnerable client’s multi-million dollar assets.
The central figure in the matter is Robert Thomas Owers, an 84-year-old widower who was diagnosed with vascular dementia and officially determined to lack the capacity to manage his personal care and property in November 2023. Prior to his decline in health, Mr. Owers had established a legal framework for his future care. In December 2018, he executed a continuing power of attorney for property, appointing his friend and long-standing lawyer, Clinton Harrison Culic, as his primary attorney. His daughter, Kelly Sullivan, was named as the alternate attorney for property. Conversely, for his personal care, Mr. Owers appointed his daughter as the primary attorney and Mr. Culic as the alternate. This arrangement functioned without public incident until after Mr. Owers moved into St. Lawrence Lodge, a long-term care facility, following his diagnosis.
Once Mr. Owers was settled in long-term care, Mr. Culic suggested that it would be in the client’s best interest to sell his real property and invest the proceeds to fund his ongoing care. By November 2024, the sales were finalized, netting approximately $405,000. These funds were initially deposited into the trust account of Mr. Culic’s firm, Veritasa Law Office. In April 2025, Mr. Culic informed Ms. Sullivan that he had secured a lucrative investment for these funds: a private loan offering a 12% interest rate. He represented to the daughter that the loan was secured by a collateral second mortgage on a valuable commercial property with substantial equity. However, the court record indicates that Mr. Culic failed to disclose a critical fact: he was the borrower.
The timeline of the alleged misappropriation suggests that the funds were utilized long before the “investment” was even discussed with the family. Evidence presented to the court indicated that the first draw on this purported loan occurred on November 15, 2024, immediately following the sale of the real estate. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the loan was ever formalized through legal documentation, nor was there any record of a mortgage being registered against any of Mr. Culic’s properties to secure the $405,000. This lack of transparency extended beyond the real estate proceeds and into Mr. Owers’ broader investment portfolio, which included approximately $700,000 held in RBC investment accounts.
In July 2025, Mr. Culic began communicating directly with RBC to facilitate further withdrawals. He informed the bank that he intended to use Mr. Owers’ investment funds as a line of credit to finance a major renovation for a private borrower, again citing a 12% interest rate. Mr. Culic characterized the borrower as a close friend of Mr. Owers and told the bank he would only reveal the borrower’s identity to Ms. Sullivan if she promised not to tell anyone else. RBC, however, refused to process the withdrawal. The bank required a formal legal opinion explaining how such a loan would comply with the strict requirements of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, which governs the conduct of those holding power of attorney in Ontario.
The refusal by RBC prompted a sharp response from Mr. Culic. In correspondence with the bank, he threatened to hire the most expensive estates and trust lawyer at a prominent national firm to teach the bank a lesson they would not soon forget. He simultaneously requested that the bank close out Mr. Owers’ accounts and transfer $150,000 directly to him in trust, with the balance moved to another financial institution. By August 2025, Mr. Culic was pressuring Ms. Sullivan to assist him in moving the money, asking her in an email to do him a big favour and ensure the bank paid out the $150,000 as soon as possible so he would not have to jump through hoops.
Ms. Sullivan, who had previously believed the private loan was coming from the real estate proceeds and not the RBC investments, became increasingly concerned by these developments. On August 18, 2025, she discovered that Mr. Culic was the intended borrower of the new funds and had already been the recipient of the previous $405,000. Her subsequent demands for a full accounting of her father’s finances revealed further irregularities. The accounting showed that approximately $118,000 had been transferred to Mr. Culic and his law firm personally, which he described as a line of credit for renovations. The records also showed frequent payments to Mr. Owers’ son, Rob, who is described in court documents as being frequently homeless and often involved with the criminal justice system.
The relationship between the lawyer and Rob Owers added another layer of complexity to the litigation. The court heard that Rob would frequently visit Mr. Culic’s office in an aggressive manner to demand money, sometimes requiring the intervention of the police. Mr. Culic maintained cash on hand to provide to Rob, justifying the payments on the basis that Rob was a dependent of his father and that Mr. Owers would have wanted to support him. However, Ms. Sullivan, who is estranged from her brother, questioned the legal basis for these payments, noting there was no court order or formal agreement requiring such financial support.
By the time the motion reached Justice Muszynski in December 2025, the parties had negotiated a consent interim order. While the primary goal of the underlying application is to permanently remove Mr. Culic as the attorney for property, the interim order serves as a holding pattern until the full hearing scheduled for March 2026. Under the terms of the consent order, the court added Rob Owers as a respondent to the proceedings to ensure all interested parties are represented. The order also mandates that Mr. Culic transfer all funds he is currently holding in trust for Mr. Owers to Ms. Sullivan’s legal counsel.
Furthermore, the interim order strictly prohibits Mr. Culic from accessing the $700,000 RBC investment accounts. Management of Mr. Owers’ daily expenses was transferred to Ms. Sullivan, though a provision was kept to allow Mr. Culic to continue making $1,500 bimonthly payments to Rob from a separate RBC chequing account. This specific provision was intended to maintain the status quo regarding Rob’s support while the broader allegations of misappropriation are litigated. Despite the agreement between the parties, Justice Muszynski expressed significant hesitation in endorsing the arrangement.
In the written endorsement, the judge noted that the evidence filed on the motion raised very serious concerns regarding Mr. Culic’s actions. Justice Muszynski questioned why Mr. Culic was being allowed to retain his position as attorney for property at all, even in a limited capacity, given the level of desperation and urgency shown in his previous attempts to access his client’s funds. The judge specifically noted that the email communications suggested Mr. Culic was treating his client’s wealth as a personal resource.
Ultimately, the court signed the consent order but did so with expressed reluctance. Justice Muszynski noted that because Ms. Sullivan had not specifically asked for the immediate interim removal of the lawyer in her motion materials, and because making such an order without formal notice to all parties might be procedurally problematic, the consent terms would be accepted for now. However, the court left the door open for further intervention, stating that if the situation changes or if the applicant wishes to seek a full removal before the March 2026 hearing, the court would be willing to hear the matter on short notice. The case continues to move toward a final resolution where the court will decide the permanent status of Mr. Owers’ estate management.
Read more Ontario legal news here.
