B.C. woman wielded ‘undue influence’ over boss who gave her $5.1 million, court finds

The two homes on Cobble Crescent in Kelowna that Vinci used Beckman's money to purchase are seen in these images from BC Assessment. (bcassessment.ca)

A wealthy businessman’s transfers of millions of dollars to his personal assistant were not gifts, and the properties she and her family purchased with the money should be transferred to him, the B.C. Supreme Court has ruled.

Douglas Alfred Beckman sued his former employee Karen May Vinci, alleging that the $5.1 million he gave her between 2020 and April 2022 was a series of loans, not gifts. Alternatively, he argued that if the court found the transfers were gifts, they were made as a result of Vinci exerting “undue influence” over him.

Vinci countersued, asserting that the payments were gifts, and further claiming she was wrongfully dismissed from her job and that Beckman had sexually assaulted her.

In a decision issued last week, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Lisa J. Hamilton ruled largely in Beckman’s favour, ordering the transfer of at least a portion of four Kelowna homes to his name.

Illness and infatuation

According to Hamilton’s decision, Beckman hired Vinci in late 2017, at a time when he was struggling with separation from his long-term romantic partner, the stress of taking his company public and “the progressive physical and cognitive effects of Huntington’s disease.”

The decision indicates that Beckman has been “financially successful in a number of ventures,” including real estate, “pre-fab housing” and his parents’ mobile home business, which he took over when his father—who also had Huntington’s disease—could no longer work.

The company Beckman was in the process of taking public when he met Vinci was called “Pinnacle Renewable Energy.” He sold his shares for “millions of dollars,” according to the decision.

Beckman also owns five car dealerships, the decision indicates.

It was Beckman’s close friends, as well as the chief financial officer of his car dealerships, who observed his struggles and suggested hiring a personal assistant.

“From the outset, the relationship between Doug and Karen became more social than professional,” the decision reads.

“Doug and Karen immediately spent significant time together. They socialized, ate meals together and travelled. In December 2017, upon hiring Karen, Doug took her to Maui, a place where Doug liked to spend time. By January 2018, Doug took Karen to Maui again. Doug and Karen went on several trips to Maui over the course of Karen’s employment. Whether they were in Maui or British Columbia, Doug paid for Karen’s meals, travel and other expenses.”

According to the decision, Beckman became “infatuated” with Vinci almost immediately, repeatedly telling her he loved her starting in January 2018.

Hamilton’s decision later speculates that Beckman’s infatuation may have been “fueled by challenges regulating his emotions and tendency to fixate or obsess, both of which are common effects of Huntington’s disease.”

While Beckman was in the early stages of the disease when he hired Vinci, colleagues and friends told the court his symptoms—including poor co-ordination and speech issues—were “obvious” to strangers.

Multiple witnesses told the court they warned Vinci that Beckman’s condition made him “vulnerable,” and that she should set boundaries with him, including refusing expensive gifts.

3 houses and 2 condos

In March 2020, when COVID-19 restrictions took effect, the Vinci family became part of Beckman’s social “bubble.”

“Doug would text Karen that he loved her and her children,” the decision reads. “Meanwhile, he rarely saw his own children.”

Around this time, the transactions began.

In April 2020, according to the decision, Beckman gave Vinci $1 million, which she used to buy out her ex-husband’s interest in the former family home on Cobble Crescent in Kelowna.

Vinci’s separation from her ex-husband Domenico Vinci had been amicable, and the pair invested in a rental property together in August 2020. Karen received $300,000 from Beckman that she put toward the purchase of the house, which was also located on Cobble Crescent, the decision indicates.

Between January and March of 2021, the document adds, Beckman gave Vinci nearly $650,000, the bulk of which was used to purchase a condo in Ottawa in the name of Vinci’s daughter Raiya. The condo was transferred into Karen’s name in July 2021.

Another $1.6 million Beckman provided to Vinci in March 2021 went, in large part, toward the purchase of a home on Bergamot Avenue in Kelowna for Vinci’s son Dylan, according to the decision.

The following year, in March 2022, Beckman gave Vinci $664,000, which she used to purchase a condo on West Avenue in Kelowna for her mother to live in. The decision adds that Beckman also provided more than $962,000 toward the renovation of the former Vinci family home.

In all, the transfers from Beckman to Vinci that facilitated the property purchases and renovations totaled more than $5.1 million.

Not loans, but not gifts

Hamilton’s decision spends little time on the proposition that Beckman intended the transfers as loans.

The judge notes that there is “no contemporaneous documentation” suggesting that any of the transfers were intended as loans, no repayments were ever made, and—as a practical matter—Vinci could not have afforded to pay back the amounts on her pre-tax salary of $60,000.

“In the circumstances, I find that there were no loan agreements between Doug and Karen or any of the defendants,” the decision concludes.

Large transfers of funds that aren’t loans don’t automatically qualify as gifts, however. Hamilton’s decision explains that, when “gratuitous” transfers are made and nothing is received in return, the law presumes that the transferor intended to create a trust, rather than give a gift.

As the recipient of the transfers, Vinci bore the burden of rebutting this “presumption of a resulting trust,” according to the decision.

Hamilton found Vinci’s testimony—along with that of the other witnesses called by the defendants in the case—lacked credibility and reliability. While they testified that Beckman told them he was giving them gifts, there was insufficient corroborating evidence of that intention, the judge ruled.

Notably, Vinci’s ex-husband, who has a background in banking, advised her to get Beckman to sign “gift letters” that would put his intention in writing.

While Domenico Vinci drafted two such letters for Karen to get Beckman to sign, the court decision indicates she never did so, and was unable to adequately explain why.

“If Doug’s actual intention was to gift Karen or her children the transfers, there would be no reason for Karen to avoid giving Doug the gift letters to sign,” the decision reads.

“However, if Doug did not actually intend the transfers as gifts or his intentions were unclear, this might explain why Karen did not ask Doug to sign gift letters. Karen would have known that if she asked Doug to sign a gift letter, Doug would likely have given a copy to his legal advisors. Doug would then have had the opportunity to obtain professional advice and assistance with his decision-making.”

Based on Vinci’s behaviour, the judge inferred that she didn’t give Beckman the gift letters because she “must have realized” he was unlikely to sign them.

Thus, the defendants failed to prove the transfers were gifts and the presumption of resulting trust was not rebutted, Hamilton ruled.

Further, even if she was wrong in reaching that conclusion and the transfers were, in fact, gifts, the judge ruled that the defendants should not retain the gifts because of Vinci’s undue influence on Beckman.

Undue influence is another legal presumption that can arise when one party makes a gratuitous transfer to another, Hamilton’s decision explains. If the recipient of the transfer is in a position to dominate the will of the transferor, the presumption of undue influence arises, and the transferee must rebut it for the transfer to stand.

“Given Doug’s physical and cognitive issues related to Huntington’s disease, the inordinate amount of time that he and Karen spent together and Doug’s feelings for Karen, I find that Karen had ample opportunity to influence Doug and that Doug was unable to resist Karen’s influence,” the decision reads.

“Karen was in a position to dominate Doug’s will.”

Hamilton concluded that Vinci had intentionally kept the transfers secret from Beckman’s other employees and advisors, ignoring their warnings that she shouldn’t accept expensive gifts from him.

“I find that Karen saw Doug as her opportunity to make life financially easier for herself and her family,” the decision reads. “Karen bragged to friends that her boss was in love with her. She told one friend that her plan was to work for Doug for four years and then she and her children would all be financially set up.”

The judge ruled that Vinci and the other defendants had failed to rebut the presumption of undue influence.

Counterclaim and resolution

In her counterclaim, Vinci alleged that she had been fired for refusing to marry Beckman, and that this constituted wrongful termination of her employment.

Hamilton rejected this assertion, accepting evidence from the CFO of Beckman’s car dealerships that he called her immediately after firing Vinci and explained that he had done so because he realized he was missing a lot of money.

The CFO later sent Vinci a termination letter, and Hamilton accepted her explanation that the firing was due to Vinci’s acceptance of large gifts from Beckman despite prior warnings not to do so.

“In my view, Karen’s behaviour was a serious breach of her fiduciary duties,” the judge’s decision reads.

“She was hired to help Doug with daily tasks. She knew he was vulnerable due to Huntington’s disease. Yet she took advantage of Doug’s vulnerabilities and acted contrary to his interests to benefit herself. She blatantly ignored (the CFO’s) instructions and warnings and kept secretly accepting further transfers. I find that there was ample cause to terminate Karen’s employment without notice.”

Vinci also claimed that Beckman had sexually assaulted her and sought damages for the tort of sexual assault and battery.

While Hamilton repeated her concerns about Vinci’s credibility and reliability, she nevertheless concluded that, on one occasion while they were in Maui, Beckman had entered Vinci’s room while she was sleeping and gotten into bed with her.

“I accept that Doug was naked when he climbed onto the bed,” the decision reads. “I accept that Doug’s conduct was sexual in nature and offensive.”

Hamilton accepted this account in part because Vinci told the CFO about it the day after it happened, and the judge found the CFO’s testimony credible and reliable.

“I find that (the CFO) offered to assist but Karen wanted to handle the situation herself,” the decision reads. “Karen did handle the situation by telling Doug the next day that his behaviour was completely inappropriate and could not happen again. I find that the incident caused Karen distress at the time but after she spoke with Doug and dealt with it, she felt better.”

Hamilton awarded Vinci $15,000 in damages for sexual assault and battery in relation to the incident.

That amount is likely to be offset by the significant amount the judge found Vinci and the other defendants owe to Beckman.

Hamilton declared that Vinci’s interests in the two Cobble Crescent houses and the West Avenue condo are held in trust for Beckman, and that her portion of the title to them should be transferred to Beckman’s name.

The judge ruled similarly regarding the Bergamot Avenue property, which was in Vinci’s son’s name. It must now be transferred to Beckman.

The Ottawa condo was sold, and some of the proceeds were provided to Vinci’s daughter for the purchase of a house on Quarry Road in Kelowna. Hamilton awarded Beckman a $300,000 equitable lien against that property.

Finally, the judge ordered Vinci and her son to “provide accounting and tracing of all sums received from the plaintiff” related to the properties they had purchased and renovated, and to disgorge any profits they took from those transfers. Vinci must also repay any “remaining funds” from the amounts she received that weren’t used for property acquisitions or renovations.

READ ALSO:

• Court appoints receiver for 2 B.C. real estate firms accused of ‘serious’ mismanagement of trust accounts
• Sellers of $2.6-million B.C. home must return buyer’s deposit after flood, court rules
• Fraudsters nearly sold a B.C. resort condo they didn’t own for $580K, court hears
• Vancouver developer ordered to pay nearly $6 million to company in receivership