A B.C. woman who used more than $5.1 million of her wealthy, terminally ill boss’s money to purchase homes for herself and her family must now transfer most of the properties back to him.
Douglas Alfred Beckman, who suffers from Huntington’s disease, fired Karen May Vinci as his personal assistant in 2022 and then sued her, alleging the millions he provided her through “handshake” agreements were meant to be loans.
Vinci, meanwhile, filed a countersuit against her former employer, alleging that Beckman intended the vast sums as gifts and accusing him of both wrongful dismissal for not wanting to marry him and multiple sexual assaults.
Beckman denied both claims and asked the court to rule that if the transfers were deemed gifts, they were given as a result of “undue influence” over him.
B.C. Supreme Court Justice Lisa J. Hamilton decided that the 59-year-old Kelowna woman was in “a position to dominate” the will of her employer and ruled largely in his favour in
a recently published decision.
Beckman, whose age was not provided in the ruling, owns five car dealerships, but has made his millions through various ventures over the years.
After starting in real estate, he launched a prefabricated housing business in Chilliwack and later assumed ownership of his parents’ mobile home business after his father could no longer work due to his Huntington’s.
In 2018, he made untold millions by selling shares of Pinnacle Renewable Energy Inc., a B.C. biomass firm he helped found, when it went public. (The company was sold again in 2021 for
)
Before that, in fall 2017, as Beckman was struggling with worsening Huntington’s disease, a recent split from a romantic partner of 12 years, and the stress of taking his company public, people close to him suggested he hire a personal assistant.
Through mutual connections, two of whom testified as his witnesses at trial, Vinci was recommended. She was promptly employed through one of his numbered companies at a rate of $5,000 monthly.
At the time, Vinci had been amicably divorced from her husband of 23 years and co-defendant Domenico Vinci for about two years and had been working odd jobs to support herself.
“From the outset, the relationship between (Beckman) and (Vinci) became more social than professional,” Hamilton wrote.
She was advised early on by multiple people about the effects of Huntington’s disease, including a lack of impulse control and specifically instructed not to let him buy expensive things for her or cover any of her expenses, even if he offered.
Almost immediately, he took her to Maui, a trip they would make together several times during her employment, sometimes with her family in tow and Beckman footing the bill.
Within a month, the judge wrote, Beckman “became infatuated” with Vinci and started repeatedly expressing his love for her, a feeling she reciprocated but explained to others that it wasn’t romantic love.
His fixation with her “may have been fuelled by challenges regulating his emotions and tendency to fixate or obsess, both of which are common effects of Huntington’s disease,” the judge wrote.
When the COVID-19 pandemic hit in March 2020, their lives became even more entwined as Vinci and her family — her ex-husband and their three children, Raiya, Kassia and Dylan, the latter two of whom are also co-defendants along with her brother, James Schafer — became part of Beckman’s “social bubble.”
“(Beckman) would text (Vinci) that he loved her and her children,” the judge wrote. “Meanwhile, he rarely saw his own children.”
Witnesses testified at trial that the two were often physically affectionate with one another — including kissing each other on the lips — occasionally called each other “Mr. and Mrs. Beckman” and consumed “a lot of alcohol” together.
When those people expressed concern about Beckman’s health, Vinci told them he was “much easier to manage when he’s drinking” and that this is what he “really wants and likes.”
Beckman’s transfers of large sums of money began that April when he sent her $1 million, which she used to buy out her former husband’s interest in their family home. Beckman would later spend more than $960,000 on renovations and property expenses at the Kelowna residence.
Not three months after the first transfer, he sent another $300,000, which she used to co-invest in a rental property on her street with her ex-husband.
Through the first three months of 2021, Vinci used almost $650,000 to purchase a condo in Ottawa for Raiya. She later transferred ownership to herself.
A witness who said she dined with Vinci that March testified that the defendant told her she planned to work for Beckman “for five years so she and her family ‘would be all set up’ financially.”
Evelyn Towgood, chief financial officer for his car dealerships, testified that she became suspicious of potential excessive spending around this time and was “very upset” when Vinci called her in tears and “came clean” about the condo.
“Towgood told (Vinci) that as an employee … that what she had done was a serious breach of her duties, particularly because of (Beckman’s) vulnerability in having Huntington’s disease,” the court ruling says.
Towgood said Vinci agreed to transfer the property to the holding company, and assumed, based on their conversation and Vinci’s remorse, that it wouldn’t happen again. The condo was never transferred.
“However, Ms. Towgood was unaware that there had been other large transfers or that there were more to come,” the judge wrote.
Around the same time the condo was purchased, Vinci obtained another $1.6 million from Beckman, most of which was spent on a nearly-$900,000 house in Kelowna for her adult son, Dylan.
In March 2022, another $664,000 was advanced, which she used to buy her mother a condo in the city.
At trial, Beckman testified that things came to a head in April 2022 when Vinci was “demanding an additional $1.7 million to purchase property” for her other daughter, Kassia, and her husband. He said that upon noticing “millions of dollars” missing, he called Towgood.
On the witness stand, Towgood said Beckman called her immediately and while his Huntington’s disease “garbled” his speech, he “managed to say that he was missing money, houses and bank drafts.”
After reviewing Beckman’s personal bank statements and bank draft copies, Towgood “saw that ‘massive amounts’ of (Beckman’s) money were missing and vomited into her garbage can.”
In her decision, Hamilton wrote that while Beckman’s memory issues from Huntington’s disease made “significant portions” of his testimony unreliable, he had strong evidence from witnesses, none of whom, the judge said, “appeared to shape their evidence to obtain a particular result or advocate for a particular party.”
On Beckman’s loan argument, Hamilton said the lack of documentation, a repayment schedule or any payments “before or after” Vinci was fired meant there was not enough evidence to demonstrate agreements existed.
“Finally, as a practical matter, it does not make sense that (Beckman) would lend millions of dollars to someone who he knew earned only $60,000 per year before taxes,” she wrote.
In contrast to Beckman’s witnesses, Hamilton said Vinci manipulated her evidence, “sometimes blatantly, to suit her case.”
Despite testimony from Towgood and others close to Beckman that they had tried to educate her on Huntington’s disease, Vinci “repeatedly stated that she did not know much if anything about” the neurodegenerative disorder, nor did she have the “tools” to assist with Beckman’s.
Moreover, Vinci swore in an early affidavit that she didn’t know Beckman had the disease when she was hired, only to say on the stand that she was aware.
More aspects of her evidence, the judge wrote, “were simply not believable.”
Hamilton also said Vinci was “angry, argumentative and sarcastic during cross-examination” and “certainly did not appear to be the meek, mild victim she tried to emulate during her direct examination.”
Hamilton ruled that the testimony of the co-defendants was unreliable, rehearsed and diminished Beckman’s physical and cognitive condition.
Regarding parts of their testimony and evidence that present the money as “gifts of love,” Hamilton said communication from Beckman was “inconsistent with the transfers being unconditional gifts.” She also noted that Vinci never sought to have Beckman sign any legally binding gift letters — two of which were composed by her ex-husband, who has a background in banking — which would have clarified the donor’s “intentions at the time of each transfer.”
“I find that she specifically chose not to do so,” Hamilton wrote.
“Finally, it seems incredible that an employer would gift his employee of less than four years over five million dollars.”
Ruling they weren’t a gift, Hamilton had to decide whether they were provided under “undue influence,” which requires the court to examine whether “the potential for domination” affects the nature of a relationship between two parties.
Considering Beckham’s “physical and cognitive issues related to Huntington’s disease, the inordinate amount of time” they spent together and his feelings for Vinci, Hamilton ruled she “had ample opportunity to influence” Beckman and that he was unable to resist.
“He paid for her travel, hotel and meals. He also took (Vinci) shopping and bought her clothing and jewelry,” the judge wrote, noting again that such things were advised against.
“(Vinci) did not heed this advice. Instead, I find that (Vinci) saw (Beckman) as her opportunity to make life financially easier for herself and her family.”
Hamilton added that even if she had ruled the transfers were gifts, she would still not allow Vinci and her family to keep them because of the undue influence.
Regarding Vinci’s counter-suit, Hamilton ruled that the “serious breach of her fiduciary duties” to Beckman as her employer provided “ample cause” for termination without notice.
The judge also had to determine, based on the evidence, whether any sexual assaults occurred during her employment and whether Vinci was deserving of punitive damages.
During trial, Vinci testified that Beckman “subjected her to repeated, unwanted physical attention, including daily touching and kissing” and claimed that on one occasion he climbed into her bed naked and sexually assaulted her.
That incident was reported to Towgood and others, but the judge noted that Vinci offered differing versions of events to each and altered them again during trial, adding further doubt to her credibility and reliability.
Still, the judge accepted that “it is more likely than not that” a naked Beckman did enter the room and enter Vinci’s bed while she slept. As such, she awarded her $15,000 in damages for “conduct that was sexual in nature and offensive.”
As for Vinci and her kin, Hamilton declared that their interest in the family home, her son’s home, her mother’s condo and the investment property be held in a trust for Beckman and they must vest the titles to his name.
Vinci and her son must also “provide accounting and tracing of all sums received from the plaintiff, including profits and expenses associated” with the properties and pay “any and all profits.” The defendant is also on the hook for any funds she received that weren’t used on properties or renovations.
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.
