The closest living relatives of an 84-year-old B.C. widow who left her $1 million estate to a much-younger “professional companion and male escort” have been given the go-ahead to challenge the will, according to a recently published court ruling.
Janet Henry executed her final will and testament in August of 2021, three months before she died, leaving the “bulk of her estate” to a man named Simon Garstin, the court heard.
Jillian and Ross Sutherland McCrone, Henry’s niece and nephew, are seeking to have the will overturned, which would open the door for them to potentially inherit the money.
“The thrust of the plaintiffs’ claim is that the deceased was subjected to undue influence by Mr. Garstin,” a decision handed down in B.C. Supreme Court on June 12 explained.
“A presumption of undue influence is established when the nature of the relationship between the parties demonstrates the potential for domination. To rebut the presumption, (the deceased) must be shown to have prepared his or her will of his or her own full, free and informed thought.”
The decision explained that Henry had no children and her husband died 17 years before she did.
“Following her husband’s death, the deceased apparently enjoyed retaining and paying for the services of various male escorts for the purpose of companionship and sexual services,” Justice Gary P. Weatherill wrote.
Henry and Garstin met online via Skype in February of 2021 and in person for the first time in April, the decision said. Over the next six months, the pair had a number of “overnight visits,” meeting in-person for the last time when Garstin stayed at Henry’s home for three nights in October.
“The sexual and companionship services Mr. Garstin provided were paid for by the deceased at agreed upon prices which were not insignificant,” the decision said.
The relatives’ notice of civil claim argues that the will should be set aside because Henry was vulnerable and lonely – particularly due to COVID-19 restrictions in place at the time – and that her relationship with Garstin was a transactional one where he was “in a position of dominance and control,” according to the decision.
Garstin, in his response, argued that the opposite was true. His claim said Henry was an “independent single woman who enjoyed his company on her terms,” adding that the fact that Henry paid him made him financially dependent on her – meaning “the deceased was in a position of dominance over him.”
The case is set to go to trial at the end of the month, but Garstin was asking the judge to strike the relatives’ claim entirely on a number of grounds, including that there was “no triable issue” and that the niece and nephew’s claim was “doomed to fail.”
Weatherill found the question of undue influence was one that should be decided at trial, and said some evidence – namely, text messages that disclosed through the discovery process – seemed to support the relatives’ allegations.
“Undue influence can be established through circumstantial evidence upon which inferences can be drawn. Inferences can be drawn from such things as the approximate 54-year difference in the ages between Mr. Garstin and the deceased,” he wrote.
“The text messages in evidence arguably suggest that the deceased and Mr. Garstin had more than a casual sexual relationship and the deceased may have been influenced by him. Those issues will need to be determined on the merits after fulsome evidence and cross-examination,” the judge concluded.
Another potential beneficiary
The court heard that a previous version of Henry’s will, from February of 2021, left the bulk of her estate to a man named Douglas Wilson. He was unaware the document existed until last year, when he was contacted about the litigation, according to the decision.
“Mr. Wilson deposed that he met the deceased in the summer of 2009, starting out as her trainer. Through that connection, they became good friends and met regularly for coffee, dinners, movies, and to watch football games. He recalls that she had an active dating life,” the judge wrote.
“Mr. Wilson moved to Australia in 2018 to attend law school and continued to stay in touch with the deceased with phone calls and Facebook.”
Wilson applied to be added as a party to the action, which the judge approved at the same time as ruling the case would proceed.
The judge noted that Wilson has a “direct interest” in the outcome of the case as a potential beneficiary if the February 2021 will is “proven in solemn form.”
Wilson was not named in previous versions of Henry’s will in 2012 and 2014, which left the estate to family.
Weatherill’s decision said Wilson “ought to have” been added as a defendant when Henry’s niece and nephew “became aware” of the February 2021 will.
“It is just and convenient that he be added now,” the judge wrote.
In his response to civil claim, Wilson says the will naming Garstin was a “radical departure from Janet’s previous estate planning, which benefitted her long-time friend.”
He, like Henry’s niece and nephew, Wilson alleged the change to Henry’s will was a result of “undue influence” including “emotional manipulation.” Other allegations against Garstin in Wilson’s response are that he convinced Henry to “attempt medically dangerous health practices such as eating raw chicken to cure cancer and to not attend the hospital when she was ill,” and that the escort advised Henry on her “financial affairs” and encouraged her to move to Mexico “to be closer to him.”
None of the allegations have been tested or proven in court.
The trial is scheduled to begin June 30, but the date may be pushed back so that Wilson can adequately prepare to participate.
