A Notice of Objection is a procedural means of pausing estate administration and is not to be taken lightly. Having said this, it is an unfortunately common situation for an objector to file a Notice in an undetailed manner, perhaps due to vague suspicions or concerns about the would-be estate trustee which may be revealed as unfounded in the future. What is an innocent prospective estate trustee (i.e. applicant to the CAET) to do?

Rule 75.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure allows any person who “appears to have a financial interest in the estate” to file a Form 75.1 Notice of Objection with the court at any time before a certificate of appointment of estate trustee (CAET) has been issued. The filed Notice of Objection effectively stays the issuance of a CAET and therefore formal estate administration with a CAET until the Notice: is withdrawn; expires after 3 years; or is removed by court order. This can be worrying for the applicant – there is now a process in play which must be dealt with; there could be risk to the estate assets in the interim; and the applicant’s character is sometimes called into question.

Rule 75.03(4), (5) and (6) outlines a process by which the applicant and objector serve and file additional forms with the end goal of moving for directions before the court for resolution of the issues. In theory, the merits of the objections (or the opposite) are made available and explored through the motion process. Perhaps there are underlying relationship dynamics and non-legal issues at play: narratives of jealousy, favouritism and general distrust to name a few. Ultimately, the parties can have their day in court which results in an order giving directions on next steps or an order vacating the Notice if it is considered unfounded.

But is there another (perhaps faster) way? It depends on the facts. In Dessisa and Wolde v Demisie, 2020 ONSC 641, the moving party successfully argued that the Notice of Objection should be struck out on the basis that the Notice was scandalous, frivolous or vexatious per Rule 25.11(b). Significantly, the court found that the objector failed to provide evidence to suggest that the deceased lacked capacity as alleged in the Notice; rather, the objector’s evidence consisted of “bald allegations” instead. The underlying basis for the objection was mere suspicion of the prospective estate trustee.

The facts in Dessisa were unique and clearly showed a frivolous intent behind the filing of the Notice of Objection. That being said, Dessisa stands as an interesting strategy to employ if there is reason to believe that a Notice of Objection has no merit whatsoever.

Thanks for reading,

Ashley Naipaul