The recent decision of Pinard et al. v. Gilchrist et al. 2022 ONSC 415 reiterates the importance of an estate trustee providing a complete picture of the estate’s assets to those with a financial interest in the estate.

Yvonne, a beneficiary to the estate of her late mother, Jean (the “Deceased”) brought a motion seeking an order for the Estate Trustee, Roland (the “Estate Trustee”), to particularize the assets forming part of the estate and to pass his accounts as Estate Trustee.

The Deceased died on December 13, 2017 at the age of 81. She was predeceased by her husband, and left behind 4 children, Yvonne, Roland, Linda and Jo-Anne. The Deceased’s last Will and Testament was made on November 18, 2017. The Will was probated and Roland was named as the Estate Trustee.

The Deceased had a prior will executed on March 13, 2013, which named Yvonne as the executrix. In November 2017, the Deceased made certain changes to the 2013 Will, including replacing Yvonne with Roland as the executor of the Estate. In and around the same time, the Deceased also took steps to remove Yvonne from the investment account they held jointly at Edward Jones. The changes to the joint account were not made as Yvonne had not signed the consent form to process the change. At the time of the deceased’s death, the joint account at Edward Jones had a balance of approximately $125,000, with this money belonging to the Deceased.

The 2017 Will provided for $130,000 in specific monetary gifts to the beneficiaries, including Yvonne, paid out of the Deceased’s investment accounts at TD Bank and Edward Jones. The residue of the estate was bequeathed to Roland. Roland had distributed the specific gifts to certain beneficiaries, claiming that he had made the payments out of his personal inheritance. Roland’s position was that since Yvonne had failed to relinquish the Edward Jones joint account, there were insufficient assets in the estate to make the specific monetary gifts to Yvonne, her daughters, and Yvonne’s granddaughter as set out in the Will.

Yvonne’s position was that Roland was under a misapprehension that he was not required to account to the beneficiaries, or that if he was required to account the information, what he provided was insufficient to satisfy his obligations as Estate Trustee. Yvonne had concerns about the Estate Trustee’s actions in fulfilling his obligations and whether he wrongfully distributed estate assets when providing monetary gifts only to certain beneficiaries. She cited the fact that the estate trustee refused to provide even informal accounts as creating cause for her concern.

The Estate Trustee’s position on the motion was that orders for assistance made pursuant to Rule 74.15 were subject to reasonable limits, were discretionary, and that courts ought to be cautious to ensure such orders were not made an instrument of abuse by parties experiencing hostility, suspicion or paranoia.

The motion raised various issues for the court to consider, including what beneficiaries are entitled to with respect to documents and accounting, and what an Estate Trustee is required to produce, among other issues.

The Court reiterated Rule 74.15 (d), (e), (h), and (i) of the Rules of Civil Procedure that a person who has a financial interest in an estate may move for an order requiring the estate trustee to file with the court a statement of the nature and value of each of the estate’s assets at the date of death to be administered by the estate trustee. After receiving this, the person with a financial interest may move for an order of further particulars by supplementary affidavit, or by an order requiring the estate trustee to pass accounts. In this case, Yvonne did have a prima facie financial interest in the Estate.

The Estate Trustee maintained that he had provided this information to the beneficiaries. The evidence was in the form of several letters and statements from the Deceased’s investment accounts. The court found that the information was insufficient. The documents and wording in the letters did not provide a clear picture of what the Estate Trustee considered to be assets of the estate, and provided no clarification that there were no other accounts and/or property that could be considered estate assets.

These facts were compelling enough for the court to direct the further provision of information and to order the Estate Trustee to pass accounts.

Thanks for reading.

Endrita Isaj