A recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court serves as a reminder that a moral obligation does not necessarily translate into a legal one. In McNeill v. Phillips, 2025 ONSC 5779, the Court struck a claim that sought to impose a duty of care where none existed in law.

The plaintiff, the biological daughter of the deceased, brought a negligence claim against her mother’s spouse, who was not her biological father. The defendant had been appointed as the deceased’s attorney for personal care and later acted as estate trustee following her death, in accordance with the deceased’s will.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant deliberately prevented her from visiting her mother in the hospital, failed to inform her of her mother’s death, and excluded her from funeral arrangements. She argued that, as attorney for personal care, the defendant owed her a duty of care to inform her of her mother’s death and that the defendant had no authority to restrict her attendance at the hospital or at the funeral.

The defendant denied all allegations and responded with a motion to strike the Statement of Claim under Rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the claim had no reasonable cause of action and constituted an abuse of process.

Motion Under Rule 21.01(1)(b)

Under Rule 21.01(1)(b), a pleading can be struck if it discloses no reasonable cause of action. This is a high threshold, and courts are generally reluctant to shut down a case before it’s heard unless it’s plain and obvious that the claim cannot succeed.

If there’s even a small chance the plaintiff could succeed, the case should move forward.[1] However, where the claim is based on assumptions, speculation, or fails to establish a recognized cause of action, it can and should be struck.[2]

Notably, the plaintiff did not attack the legitimacy of testamentary documents, nor did she attack the validity of the Power of Attorney under which the defendant acted. Rather, the plaintiff’s claim was a simple one – negligence. The test for negligence requires four elements (1) the duty of care, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) damage, and (4) causation. The claim failed at the first step – no duty of care existed between the defendant and plaintiff.

No Duty of Care Owed

The court confirmed that the law does not impose a duty of care between two competent adults merely because they share a familial relationship. There is no legal duty to facilitate or preserve an adult child’s relationship with a parent. Similarly, there is no recognized duty to inform an adult child of a parent’s hospitalization or death unless dependency or special circumstances are alleged—and none were pled here.

Once the Power of Attorney was invoked, the defendant’s sole legal duty was to the deceased, not to her daughter. The defendant’s obligations were governed by the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 and the Health Care Consent Act, both of which direct the attorney’s duties towards the grantor alone.

As such, even if the plaintiff’s exclusion felt morally wrong, the Court held that it did not amount to a breach of any legal duty.

Motion under Rule 25.11

Even though the claim was dismissed under Rule 21.01(1)(b), the court also found that the claim could also be struck under Rule 25.11 as an abuse of process. A claim may be considered frivolous or an abuse of process if it based on untenable legal theories or lacks sufficient factual support.[3]

The court found that the plaintiff’s claim was highly personal and emotionally driven, rooted in long-standing family conflict rather than any recognized legal wrong. The allegations traced years of strained mother-daughter relations that long predated the mother’s illness and death. Ultimately, the court viewed the claim as an attempt to use the legal system to seek personal reparations rather than to resolve a true legal dispute. As such, it was struck as an abuse of process.

Amending the Statement of Claim

To be as thorough as possible, the court considered whether leave should be granted to amend the Claim, despite it not being requested by the plaintiff. Again, the court concluded that it was plain and obvious that no amendment could create a viable cause of action based on the facts alleged.

Conclusion

The court dismissed the action in its entirety and ordered the plaintiff to pay $10,783.53 in costs, plus post-judgment interest.

McNeil v. Phillips highlights that emotional grievances or perceived moral duties do not equate to enforceable legal obligations. Attorneys for personal care owe duties solely to the grantor, not to third parties.

[1] Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., 1990 CanLII 90 (SCC)

[2] Hunter v. Bravener, 2003 CanLII 28855 (ON CA) at paras. 3-5.

[3] Del Giudice v. Thompson (2021 ONSC 5379, aff’d 2024 ONCA 70)