Friday 9 March 2018


The world is plagued by millions of psychopaths who have no empathy towards other human beings. They think only of themselves and will do anything to anyone to further their interests. They are the world’s creeps.                                                               

The creep I am writing about in this article is Kathleen Anne Worrod (also known as Katheleena).  I have studied the transcript of the civil trial in which this creep was sued. I will refer to much of what was decided by the court with respect to the wrongdoing committed by this creep.

On June 18, 2011, a 50-year-old victim was involved in an ATV accident in which he sustained a catastrophic brain injury. Following the accident, he was transported to the Sudbury General Hospital where he remained in a coma for 18 days.  Eventually, on October 21, 2011, after undergoing extensive occupational and physiotherapy he was released into the care of his two sons, James and Justin Hunt and he was permitted to return to his home in the Town of Novar, Ontario. 

Prior to the accident Kim Keven Hunt was involved in what can generally be described as an on again, off again relationship with the creep, Kathleen Anne Worrod. At the time of the accident Ms. Worrod was subject to a recognizance related to impaired driving and breach of recognizance charges.  Her two daughters were her sureties and it was a condition of her recognizance that she live with her sureties in the City of Barrie, Ontario.                                        
In the early morning of October 24, 2011, three days after Mr. Hunt arrived home and unbeknownst to his sons, Mr. Hunt was picked up on the roadway outside of his home by Ms. Worrod’s uncle, Ted Konwent and driven away.   James and Justin were concerned when they discovered that their father was missing. Further, their father had left the house without his medication.  They both had received extensive training in caring for him and assisting him in his rehabilitation and to the best of their knowledge he was not in the company of anyone who was trained to look after his medical needs.  Ultimately, they were able to contact Mr. Hunt by cell phone and he informed them that he was being driven to Parry Sound, Ontario, to price out a foundation job.  This was confirmed by Mr. Konwent.

This information merely added to their concerns.  Prior to his accident Mr. Hunt had worked as a self-employed landscaper; he was not a builder and he did not construct foundations. Furthermore, he lacked the cognitive and physical abilities to carry out such functions as a result of his injuries.

Eventually, later that day, Mr. Hunt’s sons were able to track their father to a hotel in Collingwood, Ontario by obtaining particulars of his credit card purchases. The police were notified and visited the hotel.  When James and Justin arrived at the hotel that evening they discovered that arrangements had been made for their father to marry Ms. Worrod that afternoon in which the  wedding had already taken place.  Although members of Ms. Worrod’s family were present at the wedding, no one from Mr. Hunt’s family, nor any of his friends were present or had even been notified about the marriage. The police released Mr. Hunt into the care of his sons. Further, Ms. Worrod was not in the company of her sureties and she was charged with breaching her recognizance.

Did Mr. Hunt have the Capacity to marry Ms. Worrod?
Section 7 of the Marriage Act of Ontario states that no person shall issue a licence to or solemnize the marriage of any person who, based on what he or she knows or has reasonable grounds to believe, lacks mental capacity to marry by reason of being under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs or for any other reason. (such as a brain injury) I have to presume that the official who issued the marriage documents didn’t know about Mr. Hunt’s prior brain injury.

A person is capable off entering into a marriage contract only if he or she has the capacity to understand the nature of the contract and duties and responsibilities it creates.  The assessment of a person’s capacity to understand the nature of the marriage commitment is informed, in part, by an ability to manage themselves and their affairs.  Delusional thinking or reduced cognitive abilities alone may not destroy an individual’s capacity to form an intention to marry as long as the person is capable of managing their own affairs.

In determining whether a person has the capacity to enter into a marriage contract, the necessity in the analysis is between preserving Mr. Hunt’s personal autonomy and the right to choose how to spend the balance of his life against the possibility that he did not fully appreciate how marriage affected his legal status or contractual obligations.

There was a heavy burden on his sons to ensure that Mr. Hunt’s autonomy was respected.  A court should only reject a person’s autonomy in the clearest of cases, where an individual lacks a clear, free and personal choice. Consequently, a court can only annul a marriage due to absence of consent if an individual does not understand the nature of the marriage contract and the duties flowing from it. Where lack of capacity is established, the marriage is void ab initio, meaning it is as if it never really happened.  The marriage is null and void from the start.

Capacity is decision, time, and situation specific. Specifically, the relevant time period in evaluating an individual’s capacity to make a particular decision is the time at which the decision is made. One is presumed capable unless and until the presumption is legally rebutted.

A Court must determine that consent in the context of marriage is an act of will and must be distinguished from capacity to marry. In other words, a person may consent to marry, but if he or she lacks the capacity to enter into the contract of marriage, the marriage is void ab initio.  

The law is settled that the onus of proof rests with the party asserting that the person in question did not have the mental capacity to consent at the time of marriage. The sons, therefore, had the onus of establishing that Mr. Hunt did not possess the requisite capacity to marry as at October 24, 2011.

A significant amount of medical evidence dealing with the issue of capacity was presented at the trial, both in the form of expert medical testimony and medical reports and by way of oral testimony from lay (non professional) witnesses.

Mr. Hunt was part of an intensive rehabilitation program established on his behalf at Sudbury General Hospital.  His treatment team consisted of, broadly, a case manager, a speech language pathologist, an occupational therapist, a psychologist, and a rehabilitation support worker They were his Treatment Team.

On October 3, 2011, which was 18 days before his release to his home, Mr. Hunt’s Treatment Team had noted the following cognitive impairments:

(a)      Mr. Hunt showed significant impairments in his executive functioning, including his ability to make decisions, solve problems, plan, organize and execute tasks;

(b)      His brain injury affected his ability to recognize his cognitive impairments and this impaired awareness made it difficult for him to experience fully what was happening around him as well as to infer consequences of events which might jeopardize his personal safety;

(c)      He should not be left alone and continued to need supervision for safety reasons as well as to remind him to take his medications;

(d)      Mr. Hunt’s  driver’s license was revoked by the Ministry of Transportation as a result of his decreased processing speed and reaction time as well as his difficulties with attention and self-neglect; and

(e) He had difficulty initiating conversation and needed cuing to provide additional information.

In addition to his cognitive impairments and deficits, the Treatment Team noted that Mr. Hunt also continued to suffer physical limitations, including: some impaired movement pattern of the left arm and limited active range of motion of the left shoulder.

On August 5, 2011, Bill Sanowar, assessed Mr. Hunt with respect to his capacity to manage property and found that he was incapable of managing property. A Certificate of Incapacity to manage property was issued pursuant to section 16(5) of the Substitute Decisions Act.

On October 19, 2011, Mr. Sanowar assessed Mr. Hunt with respect to personal care and   found that Mr. Hunt was incapable in areas of health care, nutrition, shelter and safety. At trial Mr. Sanowar testified that he was appointed a capacity assessor approximately 20 years ago. 

Mr. Sanowar found Mr. Hunt incapable of managing his property, based on his assessment of Mr. Hunt on August 5, 2011, wherein he made the following observations:

(a)    Mr. Hunt’s presentation was that of someone who showed flat affect, meaning that there was a lack of any sort of excitement or change in his presentation and his voice was monotonic.

(b)   Mr. Hunt was unable to demonstrate an understanding or awareness that he suffered deficits from the accident, physical and otherwise;

(c)   Mr. Hunt was unable to accurately estimate the time of the day, despite cuing to a clock located in the room and to the fact that lunch was being prepared at the time and delivered in carts to patients; and

(d)      Mr. Hunt was not able to demonstrate familiarity with nor appreciation for his financial circumstances to allow management strategy and was also unable to retain information of a financial nature which was shared with him.

What surprises me is that the person officiating the marriage ceremony never noticed that Mr. Hunt may not have fully understood what was going on and what he was getting into.
Dr. Van Reekum explained that as a result of Mr. Hunt’s frontal lobe injury and executive functioning impairments, he will have more difficulties understanding the consequences of his behaviours and his actions. He is also much more likely to be driven by stimulus response because of his injury to his frontal lobes, which are responsible for reasoning, abstraction, self-awareness, problem-solving, considering consequences, and inhibiting his behaviour  

The Marriage

Ms. Worrod testified that after Mr. Hunt came out of his coma she and Mr. Hunt spoke regularly as he would call her about 10 to 20 times a day and texted her consistently. She testified that Mr. Hunt knew they had lived together, worked together and that they were engaged. He told Ms. Worrod to say hi to Sophie and Ted Konwent and asked how her daughter Jessica’s son Sebastian was doing.
Ms. Worrod testified that she made arrangements with the Reverend, organized the music, and flowers. She claimed that she did not book the hotel but rather that she believed Mr. Hunt did.

Ms. Worrod met with Mr. Hunt and Ted at the Bracebridge Courthouse and Mr. Hunt was able to provide all the information to the court in order to obtain the marriage license. She and Mr. Hunt met with Reverend Head and discussed how Mr. Hunt had suffered an accident and had just been released from the hospital and what kind of ceremony they wanted.

Revered Craig Head officiated the marriage between Mr. Hunt and Ms. Worrod on October 24, 2011. He testified that he was aware of an obligation to ensure that marriages were not performed on individuals who were of unsound mind.  Reverend Head testified that he met with the couple twice on the day of the marriage, once for 20 minutes at an Esso parking lot and later on in the evening prior to their ceremony.  He did not speak with Mr. Hunt separately. He did not recall speaking with the couple regarding Mr. Hunt’s accident and his recent release from hospital and did not observe anything that would have made him cautious or skeptical with respect to Mr. Hunt’s demeanour. Reverend Head testified that he did not have an independent recollection of the wedding day.

Mr. Hunt was called by the Worr9d to provide testimony at trial. In order to assist him in feeling comfortable, his evidence was taken in a conference room.  He was permitted to take his little dog Tico with him into the room and the dog sat on his lap while he answered Worrod’s questions.

Broadly, Mr. Hunt testified that he and Ms. Worrod were married in a building at a ski hill and he did not know why he wanted to get married to her. He was confused as to whether he was still married to Ms. Worrod and said his boys thought the marriage was not valid because they got married at a ski hill and not a church. He volunteered that he and Ms. Worrod had separated for about a day prior to the marriage, and then when questioned whether Ms. Worrod told him to say that, he responded, “yes”. He said all of his family was busy and he did not tell them about the wedding. He was not involved in planning the wedding and did not remember how he proposed.  He said that he did not have any medication at the time of the marriage because he had not gone to the doctor yet.

The issue before the court is not whether Mr. Hunt wished to marry Ms. Worrod on October 24, 2011. If the test for capacity was whether someone wished to marry, almost every teenager would get married. 

The test for capacity requires that persons entering into a marriage contract understand the duties and responsibilities which a marriage creates  and  have the ability to manage themselves and their affairs.

The judge made the following observation

The evidence is clear that before his accident Mr. Hunt understood and appreciated the consequences and responsibilities of marrying Ms. Hunt and that he had made his decision not to do so.

As early as December 16, 2010 he and Ms. Worrod prepared and signed a document entitled Property Settlement Agreement.  The agreement provided that Mr. Hunt would purchase Ms. Worrod’s interest in the matrimonial home (valued at $52,000).  He provided her with a cheque for $27,000 which she cashed and the balance of $25,000 was applied to the monies he had paid for the legal expenses she had incurred in relation to her drinking and driving offences.

 Notwithstanding Mr. Hunt’s purchase of Ms. Worrod’s interest in the house and his apparent decision that he would not marry Ms. Worrod, she continued to reside at the Novar premises because Mr. Hunt was her surety, and she accompanied him to his jobsites for a number of weeks after the start of his season in May, 2011.  As he explained to his friend Mr. Hofman, he had to “keep an eye on her”.

In deciding that Mr. Hunt had made up his mind not to marry Ms. Worrod at the time of the accident I attach much weight to the evidence of Officer Rosemary Coffey.  She testified that she was called to the Novar premises on the evening of June 4, 2011.  When she arrived, she found Mr. Hunt outside of the premises waiting for the police at the end of the driveway.  He informed her that he was Ms. Worrod’s surety; she stated that he did not refer to her as a girlfriend but only that they had once been boyfriend and girlfriend.  He then informed the officer that he could not “control her booze consumption”.  He had arrived home from work about half an hour earlier, had discovered alcohol and poured it down the sink, which resulted in Ms. Worrod becoming very angry.

Officer Coffey, accompanied by two other officers, knocked on the door.  It took a while, but when the door was finally answered Ms. Worrod was standing there, wearing only a T-shirt, and nothing else.  Officer Coffey stated that Ms. Worrod was slurring her words, her eyes were red rimmed, and she could only stand holding on to the walls.  According to officer Coffey, Ms. Worrod was obviously intoxicated.  The officers found an empty bottle of wine under the sink, as well as a partially consumed mickey of alcohol.  When Officer Coffey entered the master bedroom, the T.V. was on but she could not find any female clothes.  The covers were pulled back on the bed in a second bedroom, in which she found female clothes, including Ms. Worrod’s jeans.  This suggests strongly that Mr. Hunt and Mr. Worrod were sleeping in separate rooms at the time, a mere three weeks before the accident.

Ms. Worrod was arrested that evening for breach of her recognizance which required her to abstain from the consumption of alcohol. Officer Coffey noted that she was so impaired it took her four minutes to put on her shoes.  She was later released into the custody of her daughters in Barrie who replaced Mr. Hunt as a surety.

The fact that Mr. Hunt had abandoned any intention to marry Ms. Worrod is further strengthened by the evidence of Bradley Hunt.  He accompanied his father on the ATV (off-road four-wheeled open vehicle) ride on the Saturday his father was injured.  He testified that when he arrived at the Novar home on the Friday evening he did not notice that anything belonging to Ms. Worrod was in the house.  He also agreed to resume working for his father the following Monday after his father assured him that “he would not be going back to her”
 In my view, the evidence overwhelmingly supports a finding that Mr. Hunt had not only made up his mind not to marry Ms. Worrod prior to the accident but also that he did not have the requisite mental capacity to marry Ms. Worrod following his accident.
 The consensus of opinion from the medical experts and witnesses, evidence which I note was uncontradicted by other medical experts, is that Mr. Hunt lacked the ability to understand the responsibilities or consequences arising from a marriage, and that he lacked the ability to manage his own property and personal affairs as a result of the injuries he sustained on June 18, 2011.

  As noted, the pre-release medical summary prepared by the Sudbury Hospital medical team stated that Mr. Hunt’s brain injury affected his ability to recognize his cognitive impairments and this impaired awareness made it difficult for him to experience fully what is happening around him as well as to infer consequences of events which may jeopardize his personal safety.

For the above reasons, I find that Mr. Hunt did not have the requisite capacity to marry Ms. Worrod on October 24, 2011.  He did not meet the testnamely that he understood the nature of the contract he was entering into and the responsibilities the contract created.  At the time, and up to the present, he remains incapable of managing his own affairs.  In the circumstances, I am declaring that the marriage is void ab initio. (doesn’t exist)

The judge’s order

For the above reasons, I find in favour of the applicants and accordingly I am issuing the following orders:

a)      an Order declaring that the marriage between Mr. Hunt and Ms. Worrod is void ab initio;

b)      an Order permanently prohibiting all contact between Mr. Hunt and Ms. Worrod, both direct and indirect, and including but not limited to telephone conversations, social media communications and communications through third parties.

c)      an Order enforcing the terms of the Property Settlement Agreement dated December 13, 2010;

d)      an Order vesting title to the Novar Property in the applicants names, in their capacity as Guardians of the Property and of the Person of Mr. Kim Hunt.  More specifically, the property which is the subject of this order is the property municipally known as 896 Whitney Road, Novar, POA 1R0 described as Parcel 11215, Section SS, Part Lot 5, Concession 5, Township of Perry. (PIN # 52166-0071)

e)      Since Ms. Worrod did not have a valid or equitable interest in the aforementioned property after December 16, 2010, an Order discharging any and all liens on the Novar Property by Legal Aid Ontario which were placed on the property after that date.

The judge’s decision was released on December 11, 2017.

I don’t know what the award of costs was but generally, the party that loses the case pays the costs of the party that won the case.

No comments: