Access to key accounts creates fiduciary duty; checks and balances are essential, says lawyer
An Ontario court confirmed on April 17, 2026, that a trusted office manager stole more than $1.1 million from her employer by exploiting the access he had given her, over more than two years and without his knowledge.
In reasons authored by a three-judge panel comprising Justices Zarnett, Monahan, and Rahman, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld findings of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and conversion against Leticia Prado, office manager at Capital Canada Limited, an investment firm owned and operated by Robert Foster. Prado was ordered to pay $1,189,119.37 in compensatory damages to Foster, as well as $100,000 in punitive damages to Foster. The motion judge had originally awarded those punitive damages jointly to Foster and Capital Canada, but the Court of Appeal set aside the award to Capital Canada, finding its inclusion to be an error of law.
Between October 2022 and January 2025, Foster gave Prado access to his banking codes, personal cheques, and electronic signature. From those accounts, 31 e-transfers of $10,000 each (except one of $5,000), 17 cheques totalling $315,886.67, and payments to her personal Platinum American Express card totalling $563,232.70 were drawn without his authorization.
The Amex charges covered luxury goods, cosmetic medical treatments, business class flights, and an $18,000 tattoo. Prado claimed the e-transfers were bonuses or compensation for extra work, the cheques were either payments she had made to third parties on Foster's behalf or personal gifts from Foster, and most of the Amex charges were for his own expenses. The court rejected all of these explanations.
The fraud was not detected by Foster. A new assistant flagged a suspicious transaction. The court noted that Foster was a wealthy professional busy managing the money of others, which explained why the transfers went undetected for over two years.
When access becomes a legal duty
It was not Prado's job title that created her legal obligation. It was the fact that Foster had entrusted her with access to and control over his personal accounts that placed her in a fiduciary relationship with him, shifting the burden onto her to prove the transfers were authorized. She could not meet that burden.
The case underscores how much work should be done at the front end before an employer hands over that level of control, says employment lawyer Charles Millar of Piccolo Heath LLP. “When you’re interviewing somebody, especially for such a critical and trusted role, you really need to do a background check, have some referrals, and comes with a really good history of holding similar roles, trustworthy roles, so that people can speak to the honesty and integrity of this person,” says Millar. “I don't think that the company made an error in placing someone in a position of trust, but where they could have tightened their guardrails was ensuring a proper background check and making sure that before placing them in that position, they came with evidence that they could be trusted.”
Millar also points to the need for ongoing monitoring even when someone is already in a fiduciary role. He notes that many companies now use electronic monitoring policies and internal flags so that if “a certain level of transaction is put through, it gets flagged in the system and often requires higher approval.”
Superior Court Justice R. Lee Akazaki, whose findings against Prado the Court of Appeal upheld, found that Prado's explanations were not credible and that there was no evidence of any reason why Foster would have paid these amounts to her.
On Prado's husband, Mariano Steiner, the Court of Appeal dismissed the claim that he assisted in the fraud, as no evidence of his participation existed. As for the separate question of whether he knowingly received stolen funds, the motion judge had found Steiner liable on that claim and ordered a reference to quantify the amount. The Court of Appeal set that finding of liability aside entirely and directed the knowing receipt claim to proceed to trial.
Employee unable to show approval for transactions
On the Amex charges, Justice Akazaki found that Prado's inability to identify a single purchase made on Foster's behalf “deflated any speculation that the court should permit a fishing expedition to search for emails authorizing transactions.”
On her overall credibility, Justice Akazaki stated: “I could not evaluate Ms. Prado's credibility, beyond giving it a null value.”
The court found that once an employer entrusts an employee with access to and control over financial accounts, the law treats that arrangement as a fiduciary relationship, with the burden of proving authorization resting on the employee. The Court of Appeal further confirmed that where the evidence is sufficiently clear, that question can be resolved without a full trial.
Checks and balances for employees with key access
Millar says the outcome is a reminder that “having everything in writing is critical,” especially in circumstances involving high-trust roles and access to proprietary information and funds. When one side claims payments were gifts or approved compensation, the documents will determine the facts — and in this case there was no evidence Prado ever had permission to take the money, he says.
The court focused first on making the wronged party whole by ordering repayment of the stolen funds, but went further because the conduct was “particularly egregious and worthy of condemnation,” adds Millar. “Punitive awards are typically given by the courts as a deterrent — it's not enough to just slap someone on the wrist and say, ‘Give him back his stuff,’” he says. “It's also, ‘You did something awful, and we need to let people know at large that this will be punished beyond just returning the funds.’”
In this case, the business owner was successful in getting a court order to get all the stolen funds returned, but Millar says it’s a reminder for organizations to exercise caution when giving access to key accounts and information. “It's good to have checks and balances across the board, monitor it, follow it, and be able to confirm if things are approved or not,” he says.
