Solicitor and Attorney for Property Chastised by the Court for Misappropriation of Funds of Incapable Person
In Sullivan v. Culic et al[1] (“Sullivan”), 2026 ONSC 23, the court granted interim relief sought by the Applicant regarding her father’s property, Mr. Owers, a person under disability and an incapable person so found, with respect to property and person. The proceedings were prompted due to serious allegations of misappropriation against his attorney for property, Mr. Culic.
Background
Mr. Owers, aged 84, suffered from vascular dementia and was determined to lack capacity to make decisions regarding his personal care and property on November 28, 2023. Mr. Owers had two adult children, Kelly (the “Applicant”) and a son, Rob.[2] Mr. Owers moved into a long‑term care facility following his diagnosis.[3]
Rob was described as having “frequent interactions with the criminal justice system” and was often homeless. [4] He was estranged from Mr. Owers prior to his incapacity and was also estranged from the Applicant.[5]
Mr. Owers had a personal relationship with Mr. Culic, who was described as a “friend of the family”, and his lifelong lawyer.[6]
In 2018, Mr. Owers appointed Mr. Culic as his primary attorney for property and the Applicant as the alternate. For personal care, he appointed the Applicant as his primary attorney and Mr. Culic as the alternate.[7]
By November of 2024, Mr. Owers’s real property had been sold and approximately $405,000.00 in proceeds had been placed in Mr. Culic’s law firm trust account. Mr. Owers also held RBC investment accounts valued at about $700,000.00.[8]
In April of 2025, Mr. Culic told the Applicant that the funds would be invested through a private loan at 12% interest, to be secured by a collateral second mortgage. He did not disclose that he was the borrower or that an initial advance had already been taken on Mr. Owers’s funds, which were held in trust by Mr. Culic’s law firm, in November of 2024. There was no indication that the loan had been formalized or secured by any mortgage on his property.[9]
In July of 2025, Mr. Culic sought RBC’s permission to withdraw funds from Mr. Owers’s investment accounts for a loan at 12%. Mr. Culic alleged that the loan was for an individual that was described as close to Mr. Owers. He further explained that the loan was to be used to finance renovations to the individual’s personal residence. RBC refused to disburse the funds because Mr. Culic failed to provide a legal opinion demonstrating compliance with section 37 of the Substitute Decisions Act.[10]
Mr. Culic then demanded that RBC close Mr. Owers’s investment accounts, transfer $150,000 of Mr. Owers’s funds to his law firm in trust, and transfer the remainder of the funds to a different bank.[11]
By August of 2025, the Applicant learned that Mr. Culic was the borrower for the earlier advance and the intended borrower for additional withdrawals. Around the same time, Mr. Culic insisted on the payment of $150,000.00 to him in trust. After repeated requests, he delivered an accounting that raised concerns of transfers totaling approximately $118,000.00 to himself and his firm. Mr. Culic asserted that he had used these funds to finance his renovations. The records also indicated that he had been providing Rob with cash from Mr. Owers’s accounts as “support”, despite there being no court order or formal agreement for such support.[12]
The Applicant moved to amend the application to add Rob as a respondent, which was unopposed, and sought interim relief relating to the control and disclosure of Mr. Owers’s funds.[13]
Analysis
The parties proposed a consent interim order (“Order”) that did not include the removal of Mr. Culic as Mr. Owers’s attorney for property. This raised significant concerns for the court, which expressed serious reservations about Mr. Culic’s conduct, particularly regarding undisclosed self-dealing and “his level of desperation and urgency” to gain access to Mr. Owers’s funds.[14] However, the court acknowledged that the Order would significantly limit Mr. Culic’s access to Mr. Owers’s assets, including his investment account.
The Order stipulated that the funds held in trust by Mr. Culic’s law firm be transferred to the Applicant’s counsel and further required Mr. Culic to provide additional disclosure as requested by the Applicant.[15]
The only account that Mr. Culic was entitled to access was Mr. Owers’s RBC chequing account, from which the consent terms provided for continued payments to Rob in a fixed, bimonthly amount of $1,500.[16] The court also permitted Rob to be added as a party to the proceeding.
The Law Society of Ontario’s Disciplinary Action
In the wake of Sullivan, The Law Society of Ontario (the “LSO”) filed a Notice of Motion seeking an interlocutory suspension or restriction of Mr. Culic’s license to practice law. This motion is based on allegations of misconduct, including misappropriation of trust funds, improper client relations, misleading conduct, breach of confidentiality, and failure to maintain professional standards. The LSO argued that there is a significant risk of harm to the public or the justice system if the order is not granted.
Conclusion
The court’s decision to limit Mr. Culic’s access to Mr. Owers’s assets and require further disclosure highlights the need to protect vulnerable individuals. Similarly, the LSO’s suspension of Mr. Culic’s license reinforces the commitment to ensuring justice and maintaining public trust in the legal profession.
—
[1] Sullivan v. Culic et al, 2026 ONSC 23
[2] Ibid at para 3
[3] Ibid at para 3
[4] Ibid at para 5
[5] Ibid at para 6
[6] Ibid at para 4
[7] Ibid at para 4
[8] Ibid at para 10
[9] Ibid at para 8
[10] Ibid at para 11
[11] Ibid at para 13
[12] Ibid at para 18
[13] Ibid at para 20
[14] Ibid at para 24
[15] Ibid at para 25
[16] Ibid at para 21
Menu
Written by: Gabriella Banhara
Posted on: January 30, 2026
Categories: Commentary, WEL Newsletter
In Sullivan v. Culic et al[1] (“Sullivan”), 2026 ONSC 23, the court granted interim relief sought by the Applicant regarding her father’s property, Mr. Owers, a person under disability and an incapable person so found, with respect to property and person. The proceedings were prompted due to serious allegations of misappropriation against his attorney for property, Mr. Culic.
Background
Mr. Owers, aged 84, suffered from vascular dementia and was determined to lack capacity to make decisions regarding his personal care and property on November 28, 2023. Mr. Owers had two adult children, Kelly (the “Applicant”) and a son, Rob.[2] Mr. Owers moved into a long‑term care facility following his diagnosis.[3]
Rob was described as having “frequent interactions with the criminal justice system” and was often homeless. [4] He was estranged from Mr. Owers prior to his incapacity and was also estranged from the Applicant.[5]
Mr. Owers had a personal relationship with Mr. Culic, who was described as a “friend of the family”, and his lifelong lawyer.[6]
In 2018, Mr. Owers appointed Mr. Culic as his primary attorney for property and the Applicant as the alternate. For personal care, he appointed the Applicant as his primary attorney and Mr. Culic as the alternate.[7]
By November of 2024, Mr. Owers’s real property had been sold and approximately $405,000.00 in proceeds had been placed in Mr. Culic’s law firm trust account. Mr. Owers also held RBC investment accounts valued at about $700,000.00.[8]
In April of 2025, Mr. Culic told the Applicant that the funds would be invested through a private loan at 12% interest, to be secured by a collateral second mortgage. He did not disclose that he was the borrower or that an initial advance had already been taken on Mr. Owers’s funds, which were held in trust by Mr. Culic’s law firm, in November of 2024. There was no indication that the loan had been formalized or secured by any mortgage on his property.[9]
In July of 2025, Mr. Culic sought RBC’s permission to withdraw funds from Mr. Owers’s investment accounts for a loan at 12%. Mr. Culic alleged that the loan was for an individual that was described as close to Mr. Owers. He further explained that the loan was to be used to finance renovations to the individual’s personal residence. RBC refused to disburse the funds because Mr. Culic failed to provide a legal opinion demonstrating compliance with section 37 of the Substitute Decisions Act.[10]
Mr. Culic then demanded that RBC close Mr. Owers’s investment accounts, transfer $150,000 of Mr. Owers’s funds to his law firm in trust, and transfer the remainder of the funds to a different bank.[11]
By August of 2025, the Applicant learned that Mr. Culic was the borrower for the earlier advance and the intended borrower for additional withdrawals. Around the same time, Mr. Culic insisted on the payment of $150,000.00 to him in trust. After repeated requests, he delivered an accounting that raised concerns of transfers totaling approximately $118,000.00 to himself and his firm. Mr. Culic asserted that he had used these funds to finance his renovations. The records also indicated that he had been providing Rob with cash from Mr. Owers’s accounts as “support”, despite there being no court order or formal agreement for such support.[12]
The Applicant moved to amend the application to add Rob as a respondent, which was unopposed, and sought interim relief relating to the control and disclosure of Mr. Owers’s funds.[13]
Analysis
The parties proposed a consent interim order (“Order”) that did not include the removal of Mr. Culic as Mr. Owers’s attorney for property. This raised significant concerns for the court, which expressed serious reservations about Mr. Culic’s conduct, particularly regarding undisclosed self-dealing and “his level of desperation and urgency” to gain access to Mr. Owers’s funds.[14] However, the court acknowledged that the Order would significantly limit Mr. Culic’s access to Mr. Owers’s assets, including his investment account.
The Order stipulated that the funds held in trust by Mr. Culic’s law firm be transferred to the Applicant’s counsel and further required Mr. Culic to provide additional disclosure as requested by the Applicant.[15]
The only account that Mr. Culic was entitled to access was Mr. Owers’s RBC chequing account, from which the consent terms provided for continued payments to Rob in a fixed, bimonthly amount of $1,500.[16] The court also permitted Rob to be added as a party to the proceeding.
The Law Society of Ontario’s Disciplinary Action
In the wake of Sullivan, The Law Society of Ontario (the “LSO”) filed a Notice of Motion seeking an interlocutory suspension or restriction of Mr. Culic’s license to practice law. This motion is based on allegations of misconduct, including misappropriation of trust funds, improper client relations, misleading conduct, breach of confidentiality, and failure to maintain professional standards. The LSO argued that there is a significant risk of harm to the public or the justice system if the order is not granted.
Conclusion
The court’s decision to limit Mr. Culic’s access to Mr. Owers’s assets and require further disclosure highlights the need to protect vulnerable individuals. Similarly, the LSO’s suspension of Mr. Culic’s license reinforces the commitment to ensuring justice and maintaining public trust in the legal profession.
—
[1] Sullivan v. Culic et al, 2026 ONSC 23
[2] Ibid at para 3
[3] Ibid at para 3
[4] Ibid at para 5
[5] Ibid at para 6
[6] Ibid at para 4
[7] Ibid at para 4
[8] Ibid at para 10
[9] Ibid at para 8
[10] Ibid at para 11
[11] Ibid at para 13
[12] Ibid at para 18
[13] Ibid at para 20
[14] Ibid at para 24
[15] Ibid at para 25
[16] Ibid at para 21
Author
View all posts