Vigilance Required to Protect Against AI-Facilitated Elder Abuse

Introduction 

While Artificial intelligence (AI) has increased productivity and innovation, it has amplified the challenges in the elder law landscape. Seniors have become the target of scams and other crimes involving AI. Older Canadians are particularly susceptible to these fraud schemes as AI becomes more sophisticated.

For elder law practitioners, understanding how AI is reshaping financial abuse, undue influence, and fraud is essential, not only for litigation and estate disputes, but also for planning and client education. 

Together, rising trends in elder abuse; an aging population; the baby-boomer-wealth-transfer; and increasingly sophisticated AI, all present elder law practitioners with a new set of challenges they must be aware of in assisting elderly clients in today’s technological landscape.

Elder Abuse in Ontario: Legal and Social Context 

There is no stand-alone statute that is dedicated to elder abuse. Currently, there is a patchwork of legislation which includes the Substitute Decisions Act[1], the Estates Act[2], the Fixing Long-Term Care Act[3], the Retirement Homes Act[4], and the Criminal Code of Canada[5].

The World Health Organization defines elder abuse as:

“A single or repeated act, or lack of appropriate action, occurring within any relationship where there is an expectation of trust, which causes harm or distress to an older person. This type of violence constitutes a violation of human rights and includes physical, sexual, psychological and emotional abuse; financial and material abuse; abandonment; neglect; and serious loss of dignity and respect.”[6]

In Ontario, the most typical type of abuse against seniors is financial abuse, which encompasses the misuse of funds, coercion, fraud and improper influence over property or decision-making.² This is particularly concerning because currently, Canada is going through an unprecedented transfer of wealth. Between 2023 and 2026, there will be approximately $1 trillion in assets passing from baby boomers to their heirs.[7] This gives potential predators plenty of opportunity to continue perpetrating such abuse.

Aging Canadians are susceptible to such abuse due to the cognitive and physical decline that accompanies aging. Approximately 22.7% of Canadians will be over the age of 65 by 2040 and by 2051, nearly one-quarter of the country’s population will be 65 years of age or older, totalling close to 12 million individuals.[8] As the Canadian population rises, so does the sophistication of technology, and its use to deceive older populations.

The Rise of AI Elder Fraud 

The developments in Artificial intelligence have dramatically changed the nature of financial exploitation targeting older adults. Common types of AI scams targeting seniors include: 

Grandparent /Voice Cloning Scams

Using only a short snippet of audio, AI can be used to impersonate a person’s voice. Scammers use this to impersonate your loved ones or pretend to be a loved one’s representative, including a lawyer or police officer. In these scenarios, the perpetrator will create a realistic, high-stakes fake emergency. They claim there has been an accident, arrest or injured person and urgently need bail money or medical funds. Victims are instructed to pay money in order to expend with the situation.

Investment Scams 

Investment scams or “get rich quick” schemes are targeted at elderly individuals because they are often nearing or entering retirement. These investments are advertised as high return and almost no risk, however, they typically leave victims at a loss.

Evolving Definition of Elder Abuse

These scams all have a common thread which is that they create a sense of false urgency and are often facilitated by AI.

While there is no stand-alone definition of elder abuse, the World Health Organization definition is relied upon consistently in Canadian jurisdictions. It is important to note that this definition relies on a “relationship of trust”.[9] This definition presumes that abuse must occur within a context where the older adult reasonably expects care, support, or protection from the person causing such abuse. This can include a family member, caretaker, or in some instances, a professional.

While this definition remains relevant, it does not fully capture the emerging reality of AI oriented fraud. Technology scams do not typically arise from an existing relationship. As mentioned, they depend on the perpetrator creating immediate and unforeseeable circumstances to which the victim is unfamiliar with. In most cases, vulnerable individuals are contacted by predators whom they have never encountered before. Elders, their loved ones, and professional service providers, should all be on the watch for potential scams that elder individuals may come to encounter.

Traditional Elder Abuse Case Law

Carrigan v. Peacock[10]

An elderly man read an article in a newspaper that advertised a promising investment for seniors. The plaintiff, Carrigan, contacted the alleged “investor” that advertised the promising investment. In further meetings between Carrigan and the investor, Carrigan was promised high-yield returns if he invested some of his savings. The Plaintiff received only two small cash payments of supposed interest. The Plaintiff commenced an action for fraudulent misrepresentation and moved for damages, including aggravated and punitive damages. The Court found that the respondent, Peacock, along with his partners, made patently false promises and did not make any attempts to verify their investments, causing Carrigan to lose his savings. As a result of Peacock’s false investment scheme, Carrigan experienced severe stress and anxiety, which led to two strokes.

This case is important because it highlights the risks of elder abuse and the Court awarded the Plaintiff aggravated and punitive damages totaling over $55,000, as well as the sum of his initial investment.

R v. Gliddon, 2017 ABPC 38[11]

Seniors between the ages of 84 and 87 were targeted by a Calgary contractor scam procured by a couple and their boss, defendant Kenneth Gliddon.[12] The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of fraud under $5,000 and two counts of fraud over $5,000 under section 380(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

The defendant promised to perform renovation work on the homes of his victims, including roof maintenance, plumbing, and general repairs. However, after charging victims, he would not complete the repairs. He would approach the victims in their home and solicit his work, targeting elderly homeowners. One of the victims, Doreen, who was 84 at the time, had paid approximately $22,493 in fake repairs. Another victim, Marvin Foote, who was 84 years old at the time, was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease and living alone when he was approached for roof maintenance for his home. It was not until Marvin’s son stepped in and contacted the Calgary police that Gliddon was charged by police.

Modern Elder Abuse Cases involving AI

R v Strebly, 2025 MBPC 57[13]

This case specifically deals with the use of AI and “Grandparent scams”. The defendant defrauded eight victims, all between the ages of 77-84. The defendant called the first victim, impersonating her grandson who said he had been in a car accident and would need $8,000 to get out of jail. The victim made the $8,000 available for pickup. On November 19, 2024, another victim received a call from the defendant requesting $5,000 for criminal defense attorney fees for a criminal lawyer named Paul Nielsen. He pretended to be her grandson and that he had been in a car accident involving a pregnant woman, and a police officer had found a beer bottle in his car. The defendant and victim created a code word for the cash pickup which was “blue”, however the defendant forgot the word upon pickup. The victim grew suspicious, called the Law Society of Alberta and realized that there was no criminal defense attorney named Paul Nielsen. She then contacted the police.

The defendant had one more failed attempt at fraud, posing as the friend of 77-year-old victim from a hospital, who said he needed money for his hospital bills. The victim met the defendant at the hospital and took pictures of the defendant, who was subsequently arrested.

Justice Devine stated that the primary sentencing principles in this case were denunciation and general deterrence, noting that this type of crime is becoming increasingly common, more sophisticated and harder to prevent as AI continues to evolve. In addressing sentencing, Justice Devine emphasized:

“Sentences must be severe enough to serve to denounce the crime and deter others from taking the risk of engaging in what is essentially elder abuse. The sentence must also acknowledge the harm this crime has done to the victims. Most of them did not recoup their financial losses, and likely never will, given their ages and fixed incomes. They have been deeply embarrassed, angry, frightened and have been left feeling more insecure, less competent and less independent.”[14]

Moral Culpability

Moral culpability is a central sentencing factor in financial elder abuse cases which has been consistently recognized across Canadian jurisprudence. In R v Strebly, the Court held that the defendant’s moral culpability was significantly increased due to the fact that all of the defendants’ victims were elderly and extremely vulnerable.

Similarly, in R. v. Gliddon, the Court found that the offender’s moral culpability to be particularly high, noting not only his deliberate targeting of elderly victims, but also his failure to pay any restitution. The Court characterized this conduct as demonstrating a profound disregard for the financial and emotional harm inflicted on seniors, reinforcing that offenders who intentionally prey on elderly individuals fall at the high end of moral blameworthiness.

Conclusion

As AI continues to evolve at an unprecedented pace, so too does its capacity to facilitate sophisticated and targeted fraud schemes against older adults. While the legal framework governing elder abuse in Ontario remains rooted in traditional concepts of trust-based relationships, the emergence of AI exploitation challenges these assumptions and reveals significant gaps in both definition and protection. Existing case law, though not yet abundant in the AI context, demonstrates the courts’ willingness to impose serious consequences where seniors are targeted, particularly when moral culpability is high and vulnerability is exploited.

Redress through the courts can be effective, but, it is often stressful, time‑consuming, and inaccessible for many older adults. There is an urgent need for legislatures to place greater responsibility on email providers and cellular service companies to develop preventive mechanisms and safeguards aimed at identifying predators and stopping them from carrying out these scams against the elderly, before they take place.

Elder law practitioners, the police and the public at large must continue to stay vigilant through community awareness, client education and advocacy for AI facilitated abuse. As Canada’s senior population continues to grow, the intersection between aging and advanced technology will only deepen.

Any article or other information or content expressed or made available in this Section is that of the respective author(s) and not of the OBA.