A common driving force in estate litigation is when siblings dispute their share of an estate. Such disputes can be significantly more contentious when the siblings are also co-estate trustees. This was the case in Hutchinson v Woodhouse, et al. where the Court ultimately held to appoint a neutral estate trustee[1].

The Deceased left a relatively simple Estate dividing the residue equally between her three daughters. The assets of the Estate consisted of the Deceased’s personal effects and a property in Newmarket. Two of the daughters, Woodhouse and Wigglesworth, were named as co-estate trustees while the third daughter, Hutchinson, was merely a beneficiary.

The Deceased died in May 2017 and the Newmarket property was sold by November 2017. However, Woodhouse refused to facilitate the distribution of the proceeds of the property. By September 2021, Hutchinson had had enough of the delay and brought an application to have Woodhouse and Wigglesworth removed as co-estate trustees, among other relief.

Wigglesworth agreed with Hutchinson’s position with respect to the delay and had noted such prior to the Application. However, Woodhouse took the position that the proceeds of the sale of the Newmarket property should continue to be held until the matter of two joint investment accounts that passed outside of the Estate to each Wigglesworth and Hutchinson by survivorship was resolved.

In its decision, the Court highlighted how Woodhouse could not hold the estate funds as security in anticipation of another proceeding. Especially, since Woodhouse had not brought an application to address the matter of the joint accounts nearly six years after the Deceased’s passing.

In granting the Application, the Court removed Woodhouse and Wigglesworth as co-estate trustees but stopped short of replacing them with Hutchinson in accordance with the Application. The Court did not blame Hutchinson for the animosity between the sisters. However, Justice V. Christie noted that “this court senses tension among the beneficiary sisters, to say the least”[2].

The Court held that a neutral professional estate trustee should be appointed, although left the selection of such an estate trustee to the parties.

[1] 2023 ONSC 3152 (CanLII)

[2] Ibid para 28