www.o

The Tragic Saga of Gilles Overtveld: A Battle for Rights, Justice, and Legacy

 

The story of Gilles Overtveld is a chilling account of systemic abuse, judicial failures, and the weaponization of legal frameworks to strip an individual of their autonomy, dignity, and legacy. At 90, Gilles—a man with an estate worth over $40 million—became the target of a calculated campaign by his purported power of attorney (POA) agents to erase his rights, isolate him, and exploit his wealth. His desperate plea to Rachida, whom he married in December 2018, underscored his struggle: “Marry me, please! A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse!” His marriage was not only a bid for survival but also a testament to his fight for justice and autonomy.

​

The Legal Right to Marry and Create a Will

Under Ontario law (2018), Gilles’ marriage to Rachida automatically invalidated his prior will, which had left substantial portions of his estate to his children and second ex-wife. Gilles sought to create a new will reflecting his current wishes, balancing fairness among his loved ones and sharing his wealth with several respected institutions:

• University of Ottawa - Faculty of Law

• Ontario Law Society

• Ontario Public Guardian and Trustee

• Bruyère Hospital

• CHEO (Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario)

• Ottawa Civic Hospital

• Ottawa YMCA/YWCA

 

These efforts were thwarted by his purported POA agents, who confined him, restricted his communication, and launched legal attacks to undermine his rights.

 

Fraudulent POA Documents: Violations of the SDA

Central to the abuse was the purported power of attorney document that granted control of Gilles’ affairs to his children. This document violated the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 (SDA) in several critical ways:

 

1. Invalid Witness Signatures: The POA lacked the signatures of two witnesses required under SDA rules. Instead, it was fraudulently signed later by lawyer Mr. Charles M. Rotenberg and presumably his wife.

2. Disbarred Lawyer: Mr. Rotenberg had lost his license to practice law in 2014, rendering his involvement not only invalid but a direct violation of the law.

3. Failure to Provide Copies: Gilles was never given a copy of the signed POA, a direct contravention of SDA requirements for transparency in such agreements.

 

Despite these clear violations, on January 30, 2019, Judge Marc R. Labrosse validated the invalid POA for Care and Property. This ruling ignored the SDA’s rules for creation and disregarded the fraudulent circumstances surrounding the document’s execution.

​

Weaponizing Capacity Assessments: Burnstein and Sarazin’s Role

 

The purported agents relied on fraudulent capacity assessments to cement their control over Gilles and his assets:

 

1. Leonard Burnstein’s Fraudulent Report: Burnstein, who falsely presented himself as "Dr. Leonard Burnstein," issued a September 6, 2017, report labeling Gilles mentally unfit. This report, later revoked during a February 19, 2021, cross-examination, was riddled with falsehoods. Burnstein admitted he lacked medical credentials and that his assessment was invalid, yet it was used extensively to justify the purported agents’ control.

2. Dr. Francine Sarazin’s Biased Assessment: After Burnstein’s report, the purported agents hired Dr. Francine Sarazin, PhD, who heavily relied on Burnstein’s findings despite their discreditation. Paid by the agents, Sarazin exhibited undue influence in her practice, basing her conclusions on interviews with nine individuals—eight of whom were hostile toward Gilles. Such reliance contravenes the ethical standards of licensed capacity assessors, who must avoid undue influence due to the life-altering consequences of their opinions.

 

Dr. Barbara Collins: An Independent and Professional Assessment

 

In stark contrast to the biased assessments, Dr. Barbara Collins, PhD, a respected psychologist, independently interviewed Gilles and conducted a thorough evaluation, avoiding any undue influence. Dr. Collins’ assessment concluded that Gilles possessed the mental capacity to revoke his existing POA and create a new one.

Her professional integrity and impartiality were clear, as she provided an independent opinion based solely on Gilles' mental state and behavior, without any external pressures. Dr. Collins’ report should have been given considerable weight in the judicial process, as it was a credible and objective assessment, affirming Gilles’ ability to make informed decisions about his care and finances. Her commitment to avoiding undue influence, coupled with her clear expertise, remains commendable in the face of a legal system that failed to protect Gilles.

​

The Misuse of the Court Case Management System

 

The misuse of the Court Case Management system proved to be a devastating experience for the respondents, who were left overwhelmed by the sheer complexity, cost and scope of the legal battle. What began as a simple case expanded to more than 10 complex cases, involving more than a dozen lawyers and requiring the respondents to sift through approximately 10,000 pages of legal documents.

 

The Court Case Management system is governed by Rule 77 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which is designed to bring certain civil cases to a timely conclusion by early and active intervention of the court, with the goal of focusing trial resources where they are most needed. This system is only available in Toronto, Ottawa, and the County of Essex (Windsor).

 

The respondent's attempt to transfer the case to Brampton, Ontario was met with stiff opposition from the Eastern Superior Court of Ontario. Our goal was to get a fair and simple trial and circumvent the Court Case Management System that exhibited to favour those who have fat wallets who could hire an army of lawyers. Not only did we lost the request, but the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for punitive and legal fees overwhelmed the financial resources of the respondents. The respondents should have been the Guinea pigs in the pilot system when their rights and access to justice were being crushed.  The discriminatory experiment with no accountability should have been stopped.

 

In Gilles' case, the system was misused in a way that compounded the hardship for the respondents, most of whom were immigrants and citizens of Canada. The court imposed an unreasonable timetable for steps in the litigation process, made numerous orders, and gave directions regarding the conduct of the proceedings that shifted the burden of proof and responsibility onto the respondents. Despite that, the respondent’s felt that their submissions were not being read and were ignored. The overwhelming volume of motions, combined with extreme costs to respond and prepare, was designed to exhaust the respondents and prevent them from effectively fighting for Gilles’ rights. None of the orders that were provided to protect the respondents in the January 30, 2019 hearing were followed by the other party. The rule states that  court order is a legally binding direction issued by a justice that requires a party to do something. Disobeying a court order can have serious legal consequences.  It has been five years of hearing, and the other party did not follow the rules and received no punitive action.

 

This misuse of the Court Case Management system exacerbated the abuse of the legal process, leading to an almost insurmountable barrier for the respondents in their efforts to protect Gilles and contest the fraudulent POA.

​

Judicial Failures: The One-Judge Rule and Lack of Transparency

The judiciary’s handling of Gilles’ case was marred by systemic failures and procedural irregularities, particularly under the pilot one-judge rule:

 

1. Lack of Records: No transcripts or recordings of the January 30, 2019, proceedings were made available to Gilles or his defenders. Without records, it is impossible to verify what transpired in court, effectively handicapping the oppressed parties—three immigrants and citizens of Canada—who lacked the resources to challenge the ruling effectively.

2. Rule 77 Violation: Gilles’ case was managed under Ontario Rule 77, which governs the pilot Court Case Management System. However, Rule 77 explicitly excludes cases involving Family Law and the SDA. By including Gilles’ case, the judiciary violated this procedural rule and undermined the protections of the SDA.

3. Disregard for the SDA: The SDA presumes individuals are capable of making decisions unless proven otherwise. Judge Labrosse’s final judgment on January 25, 2023, ignored this presumption and relied heavily on Burnstein’s discredited report, ruling that Gilles lacked capacity since 2017.

 

Extreme Measures and the Mysterious Death

In the months leading up to his death, Gilles was secretly transferred to a nursing home under extreme security measures to ensure his wife and supporters were unaware of his location. This secrecy isolated Gilles, leaving him vulnerable and without the comfort of his loved ones.

Already in fragile health following TURP surgery, Gilles faced heightened risks of severe infection due to neglect and substandard care. These fears were realized when he developed a fatal infection. Gilles died on June 11, 2023, his death shrouded in mystery. Rachida was informed ten days later via email. By that time, Gilles’ body had been embalmed without her consent, eliminating the possibility of a forensic investigation. She was barred from attending his funeral or receiving information about his burial location, robbing her of the basic right to mourn her husband.

 

A Legacy Tarnished but Not Forgotten

Gilles’ intent to share his estate with public institutions remains a testament to his values. However, his vision was obstructed by systemic abuse, fraudulent assessments, and judicial neglect. Following his death, the court terminated CV19-81051 and prioritized CV23-92738, a case aimed at consolidating control over Gilles’ $40 million estate, over FC-19-1504, the application to annul his marriage.

 

A Call to Action

The case of Gilles Overtveld highlights urgent issues in Ontario’s legal and judicial systems, particularly regarding power of attorney, elder rights, and capacity assessments. Key reforms must include:

1. Strict enforcement of Rule 77 exclusions and SDA principles.

2. Mandatory transparency in judicial proceedings, including the availability of transcripts.

3. Oversight of POA creation to prevent fraud and abuse.

4. Ethical reforms for capacity assessments to eliminate undue influence.

 

Gilles’ ordeal is a stark reminder of how easily the legal system can be weaponized against the vulnerable. It demands systemic reform to ensure justice and dignity for all. In October 23, 2023, the Canadian Bar Association published a paper – “Silent Epidemic: The Alarming Rise  of Elder Abuse and Urgent Need for Estate Law Reform”.

https://www.cba.org/Sections/Elder-Law/Resources/Resources/2023/EssayWinner2023Elder.

It is full information that if followed would have kept Gilles alive and free.

vertveld2023.com