Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Allegations that attorney for property and long-time lawyer, Clinton Harrison Culic, misappropriated funds belonging to incapable person, Robert Thomas Owers.
• Evidence that a purported “private loan” for Mr. Owers’ benefit was advanced from sale proceeds held in trust, with no indication of formal loan documentation or a registered mortgage, and with Mr. Culic himself as the borrower.
• Concerns arising from an accounting showing payments to Rob, and transfers to Mr. Culic and his law firm personally totalling approximately $118,000, which he said he used as a line of credit to finance renovations.
• Bank correspondence indicating that RBC refused to allow withdrawals from investment accounts without a satisfactory legal opinion addressing compliance with s. 37(3) and (4) of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992.
• Communications from Mr. Culic to RBC and to the applicant showing urgency in seeking access to funds, including a request to close investment accounts and transfer $150,000 to him in trust.
• Interim consent order issues, including adding Rob as a respondent, transferring trust funds to the applicant’s counsel, restricting access to RBC investment accounts, continuing specific payments to Rob, and requiring further disclosure.

Background and parties

This proceeding is brought under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 30, and concerns the property of an incapable person, Robert Thomas Owers. The style of cause is Sullivan v. Culic et al, 2026 ONSC 23, in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The applicant is Kelly Sullivan. The respondents on the motion are Clinton Harrison Culic, Veritasa Law Office Professional Corporation, and the Public Guardian and Trustee. The endorsement is by Justice Muszynski on a motion for interim relief heard December 3, 2025, with reasons dated January 2, 2026.

Mr. Owers is 84 years old and suffers from vascular dementia. He was determined to lack capacity to make decisions related to his personal care and property on November 28, 2023. He is a widower and has two children: his daughter, the applicant Kelly Sullivan, and his son, also named Robert Owers. To avoid confusion, the endorsement refers to the son as “Rob.” The applicant and Rob are estranged. The evidentiary record contains limited information about the relationship between Mr. Owers and Rob before Mr. Owers lost capacity.

Powers of attorney and roles

The endorsement records that Mr. Culic is both a family friend of Mr. Owers and his long-standing lawyer. On December 6, 2018, Mr. Owers executed a continuing power of attorney for property appointing Mr. Culic as the primary attorney for property and the applicant as the alternate attorney. On the same day, he executed a continuing power of attorney for personal care appointing the applicant as the primary attorney for personal care and Mr. Culic as the alternate attorney.

The underlying application seeks, among other things, relief relating to Mr. Culic’s role as attorney for property. Justice Muszynski notes that the ultimate application involves the removal of Mr. Culic as attorney for property. The motion dealt with by this endorsement, however, is for interim relief and also includes a request to amend the notice of application to add Rob as a respondent.

Sale of real property and handling of proceeds

After his diagnosis, Mr. Owers moved from his residence into St. Lawrence Lodge, a long-term care facility. The endorsement states that, following this, Mr. Culic suggested to the applicant that it would be prudent to sell Mr. Owers’ real property and invest the proceeds. By November 2024, the sales had been completed. The proceeds of sale, approximately $405,000, were deposited into the trust account of Mr. Culic’s law firm, Veritasa Law Office Professional Corporation.

In addition to these trust funds, the endorsement notes that Mr. Owers had RBC investment accounts totalling approximately $700,000, as well as an RBC chequing account used for expenses and payments. These financial assets became the subject of the dealings described in the motion record.

The purported private loan and use of trust funds

In April 2025, according to the endorsement, Mr. Culic reported to the applicant that he had arranged a private loan at 12% interest per annum, secured with a collateral second mortgage on a valuable piece of commercial property with substantial equity, as an investment opportunity for Mr. Owers’ funds.

The endorsement records several key points about this arrangement. First, Mr. Culic did not disclose to the applicant that he was the borrower under this private loan. Second, he did not disclose that the first draw on the loan had been made on November 15, 2024, using funds from the proceeds of the sales of Mr. Owers’ real property that were being held in his law firm’s trust account. Third, there is no indication in the evidentiary record that this loan was ever formalized in any way, and no indication that a mortgage was ever placed on any property owned by Mr. Culic to secure the loan.

The endorsement further indicates that, when a complete accounting was eventually provided to the applicant, she became deeply concerned with many of the expenses, including payments to Rob, and transfers to Mr. Culic and his law firm personally totalling approximately $118,000. The endorsement states that Mr. Culic advised the applicant that he used those funds advanced to him personally as a line of credit to finance renovations.

Payments to Rob and his interactions with the attorney

With respect to payments to Rob, the endorsement states that the evidentiary record shows Rob would routinely show up at Mr. Culic’s office requesting money, often in an aggressive manner. It notes that, according to Mr. Culic’s correspondence, he had to call police on occasion in response to Rob’s behaviour in his office.

The endorsement describes how Mr. Culic appears to have kept cash on hand to give Rob from Mr. Owers’ accounts for “support” for Rob. When the applicant questioned the basis for these “support payments,” the endorsement records that Mr. Culic suggested that Mr. Owers would want to make sure Rob was supported. The endorsement also notes that Mr. Culic appears to take the position that Rob is dependent on Mr. Owers and thus entitled to these “support payments.” However, it specifically states that there is no court order or other formal agreement suggesting that Mr. Owers is required to support Rob financially.

Dealings with RBC and attempts to access investment accounts

The endorsement details several email communications between Mr. Culic and RBC in July 2025. On July 22, 2025, he informed RBC that funds would be withdrawn from the RBC investment accounts and used as a line of credit to finance a major renovation to a private borrower’s personal residence. This was described as being secured by a collateral mortgage at 12% per annum. In that email, he stated that the borrower was a close friend of Mr. Owers and indicated he was prepared to reveal the borrower’s name to the applicant on the condition that she not reveal it to anyone else.

RBC refused to permit these withdrawals without a legal opinion addressing how the proposed loan would meet the requirements of s. 37(3) and (4) of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992. The endorsement records that Mr. Culic did not provide a legal opinion to RBC’s satisfaction, and as a result, RBC would not allow him to withdraw funds from the investment accounts.

In response, the endorsement states that Mr. Culic emailed RBC saying he would “hire the most expensive estates and trust lawyer at Gowlings and she will teach them a lesson they will not soon forget.” In the same correspondence, he requested that RBC prepare paperwork to close out the investment accounts, transfer $150,000 to “Clint H. Culic in trust,” and transfer the balance to Scotiabank in trust for Mr. Owers.

On August 5, 2025, the endorsement notes that Mr. Culic emailed the applicant advising that it was time to move Mr. Owers’ investments from RBC to another bank. The applicant had understood that a private loan had been arranged from the proceeds of the real property sale, not from withdrawing funds from RBC investment accounts. She became concerned and began making inquiries. On August 18, 2025, she learned for the first time that the borrower in relation to the existing loan that had already been advanced, and the intended borrower of additional funds from the investments, was in fact Mr. Culic personally.

The endorsement also records that, on August 21, 2025, Mr. Culic emailed the applicant asking her to do him “a big favour” and ensure that the bank paid out the $150,000 to him in trust “ASAP” so he would not have to “jump through hoops.”

Request for accounting and concerns raised

After the sales of the real property, the applicant requested a full accounting of all funds received and expenses paid by Mr. Culic. The endorsement states that it took repeated requests for him to provide a complete accounting. Once this was obtained, the applicant became deeply concerned with many of the expenses, including his fees, payments to Rob, and transfers to him and his law firm personally totalling approximately $118,000. As noted above, he advised that he used those funds as a line of credit to finance renovations.

These facts formed part of the evidentiary record placed before the court on the motion for interim relief and are central to the concerns expressed by the judge about the handling of the incapable person’s funds.

The motion, parties’ positions, and proposed consent order

On this motion, the applicant sought, among other things, to amend the application to add Rob as a respondent. The endorsement notes that Rob was not originally named as a respondent but that, on the motion, the applicant sought this amendment, and the court found Rob to be a proper party to the application.

The motion also sought interim relief relating to the management and control of funds associated with Mr. Owers. The allegations against Mr. Culic arise from his actions as attorney for property and include allegations of misappropriation of funds, which the endorsement characterizes as serious.

On the morning of the scheduled motion hearing, counsel for the applicant advised the court that a consent order had been reached. The endorsement records that Mr. Culic did not file materials on the motion and did not attend at the hearing. The Public Guardian and Trustee did not attend but advised applicant’s counsel that it consented to the proposed amendment adding Rob and did not take a position on the remainder of the motion.

The proposed consent interim order, as described in the endorsement, provided for the following:
• that the application be amended to name Rob as a respondent;
• that Mr. Culic transfer funds he was then holding in trust for Mr. Owers to the applicant’s counsel’s firm to hold in trust;
• that Mr. Culic be prevented from accessing Mr. Owers’ RBC investment accounts;
• that, without prejudice and subject to future accounting, Mr. Culic continue making payments to Rob in the amount of $1,500 on a bimonthly basis from Mr. Owers’ RBC chequing account;
• that Mr. Culic make further disclosure as requested by the applicant; and
• that the applicant ensure that Mr. Owers’ monthly expenses are paid from his RBC chequing account.

Judicial concerns and decision on the motion

Justice Muszynski notes that, while the ultimate application includes a request to remove Mr. Culic as attorney for property, the proposed consent interim order does not contain such a term. The endorsement states that, based on the evidence filed, the judge has “very serious concerns” about Mr. Culic’s actions. The judge also questions the utility of Mr. Culic retaining his position as attorney for property in light of the terms of the proposed consent order.

The endorsement comments that email communications between Mr. Culic and RBC, the applicant, and the applicant’s counsel show a level of desperation and urgency on his part to gain access to funds. Justice Muszynski indicates that she queried whether it would be appropriate to make an interim order removing him as attorney for property and replacing him with the applicant, who is named as alternate in the power of attorney.

Counsel for the applicant, however, acknowledged the seriousness of the situation but noted that the proposed consent interim order would prohibit access to RBC investment accounts and transfer the remaining trust funds to the applicant’s counsel. Counsel observed that, in theory, only the RBC chequing account, with a more modest balance, would remain accessible to Mr. Culic, primarily for payments to Rob. Counsel also pointed out that the applicant had not sought interim removal of Mr. Culic as attorney for property on this motion, and suggested that making such an order without notice to Mr. Culic, the Public Guardian and Trustee, or Rob could be problematic.

In these circumstances, Justice Muszynski states that she will “reluctantly” sign the proposed consent interim order as drafted. The endorsement concludes by indicating that, if the applicant wishes to bring a further motion with notice to the parties before the application is heard, the judge would be willing to hear it on short notice if the court can accommodate it.

The endorsement does not specify any award of damages, costs, or a quantified monetary judgment in favour of any party. It sets out interim procedural and financial management directions, but no total monetary award, costs, or damages amount can be determined from this decision.