'She was victimized by a predator': B.C. court reverses transfer of $1.4M townhouse in elder abuse case

The B.C. Supreme Court is shown in Vancouver, B.C., on Tuesday, June 2, 2015. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck

A man who "systematically isolated, manipulated, deceived, abused, and exploited" an elderly North Vancouver woman has lost his ownership stake in her home.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Sheri Ann Donegan – who has since been appointed to the B.C. Court of Appeal – used those words and many more to describe Zoltan Vimhel's treatment of Judith King in a decision issued last week and published online Monday. 

The judge ruled that Vimhel got himself added to the title of King's three-bedroom, three-bathroom townhouse on Berwick Avenue through "undue influence," and ordered that his share of the property be transferred back to her.

Vimhel, who "initially participated" in the court proceedings, stopped responding to King's lawyers more than two years ago, according to the decision.

The townhome's assessed value as of July 1, 2023, was slightly more than $1.4 million, according to BC Assessment.

Defendant began exerting control 'immediately'

Today, King is 88 years old and resides in a care home. She suffers from dementia, and her son Owen was appointed as her litigation guardian partway through the court proceedings.

When she met Vimhel in 2013, King was 77 and "doing well physically, emotionally, socially and financially," according to Donegan's decision.

The decision says King was "very close" with her family, including her two children, had good relationships with her neighbours and was active in her church community.

"In other words, at the time she met the defendant, Ms. King had an active and fulfilling life," the decision reads.

"The defendant is 15 years younger than Ms. King. When he came into her life, he described himself as a self-employed 'artist.' He had little to no income and was living out of a vehicle. The defendant immediately began to exert undue influence and control over Ms. King. He slowly took over all aspects of her life."

While their relationship began as a friendship, in 2014, it became romantic and Vimhel "gradually took greater and greater control over Ms. King’s social, legal and financial life," the court decision indicates.

Vimhel began "physically, verbally and mentally" abusing King, and by the end of 2014, she "was so afraid of the defendant, she felt physically unsafe and feared that he would injure her if she did not do as he wanted," according to the decision.

'Her world had collapsed'

The decision indicates Vimhel moved into King's townhouse "not much time" after they met.

Vimhel began criticizing King's friends, family and neighbours, engaging in various "tactics" to prevent her from socializing or even communicating with them, according to the decision.

Donegan describes Vimhel blocking King's children's phone numbers in her phone, preventing her from writing emails to them, writing cruel emails to them from her account, directing them not to contact her, making false police reports and having lawyers send her children letters on her behalf.

On one occasion, Vimhel also abused the court process "to obtain an unwarranted protection order against her daughter," the decision indicates.

He used similar tactics to disconnect King from her friends and neighbours, installing security cameras, accompanying her whenever she went out – "seemingly to prevent her from interacting with others alone" – and installing double-sided locks that he used to lock her into the home, according to the decision.

"Ms. King wanted to have contact with her family and friends, but she followed his instructions to not contact them because she was afraid that he would hurt her if she disobeyed," the decision reads.

"She stopped attending church and all social events. She stopped hosting potluck dinners. Her world had collapsed to revolve around one person: the defendant."

Disappearance and 'rescue'

In 2017, the decision indicates, Vimhel moved with King to a motel on King George Boulevard in Surrey, where the pair paid $3,000 per month for a room with no cooking facilities.

"He told no one where they had gone," the decision reads.

Though King's children were "confused and distraught" over their mother's apparent change in attitude after she met Vimhel, they never stopped trying to connect with her, according to the decision.

When King disappeared in 2017, her daughter hired a private investigator to find her.

In November 2018, the children located their mother and were "horrified" to learn how she had been living.

"As time went on, Ms. King’s family and friends continued to try to help her, but Mr. Vimhel had successfully isolated her and assumed control over her legal and financial affairs," the decision reads.

King sold a vacation property she owned in Parksville in 2017, depositing the $515,000 in proceeds into an account held jointly with Vimhel.

"By 2020, the account was emptied," the decision reads.

Similarly, King – at Vimhel's direction – took out a $200,000 mortgage against the North Vancouver townhouse.

"There is no evidence about the whereabouts of these funds," according to the decision.

Vimhel was added to the townhome's title in 2020, the same year that King's daughter and grandson confronted her and Vimhel at the Surrey motel, with the assistance of police.

"When her grandson asked Ms. King to go for coffee, Mr. Vimhel became very angry and began aggressively trying to pull Ms. King back into the room," the decision reads. "Police intervened and Ms. King was permitted to leave."

Donegan's decision refers to this incident in multiple places as King's "rescue."

Property held in trust

The decision spends relatively little time on legal analysis of the case, with Donegan concluding that the transaction that allowed Vimhel to become a part-owner of the home was "gratuitous," and therefore resulted in a presumption that he held his share of the property in trust for King.

"Mr. Vimhel is, therefore, required to rebut the presumption by establishing that Ms. King intended to transfer to him all the rights of a joint owner," the decision reads.

"He has failed to do so. Accordingly, I find Mr. Vimhel has failed to meet the onus upon him and conclude that Mr. Vimhel has held his interest in the property on a resulting trust since the time of the transfer."

Likewise, Donegan concluded that Vimhel had exerted undue influence in effecting the transfer that added him to the title.

The judge noted that King did not have independent legal advice, "did not know what she was transferring, what it meant or why she was doing it."

"All she knew, after seven years of his domination, control, abuse and intimidation, was that Mr. Vimhel wanted her to conduct this transaction," the decision reads.

"She feared him, so she did what he asked her to do. In short, Ms. King was vulnerable. She was victimized by a predator. The transfer was the product of undue influence and must be set aside."

Donegan's decision concludes with orders declaring that Vimhel held his share of the property in trust for King and instructing the land title office to change the property's title to reflect King as the sole owner.

The judge also ordered Vimhel to pay $50,000 in punitive damages, plus court costs and interest.