The recent decision of Campbell Estate v. Kipfer, 2025 ONSC 426, provides clear confirmation on whether a person who intends to bring a claim against an estate for unjust enrichment has standing to file a Notice of Objection under Rule 75.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The following subparagraphs of Rule 75.03 are relevant to the case:
75.03 (1) At any time before a certificate of appointment of estate trustee has been issued, any person who appears to have a financial interest in the estate may give notice of an objection by filing with the court a notice of objection (Form 75.1), signed by the person or the person’s lawyer, stating the nature of the interest and of the objection.
(2) A notice of objection expires three years after it is filed and may be withdrawn by the person who filed it at any time before a hearing for directions under rule 75.06 in an application for the certificate or may be removed by order of the court.
The Facts
On September 21, 2023, the Deceased passed away, survived by his separated spouse (the “Applicant”), current partner (the “Respondent”) and four children.
While the Deceased and the Applicant had married in 1981 and separated in 2009, they maintained an amicable relationship. Until the Deceased passed away, they raised their children, co-owned property and operated a business.
Meanwhile, the Deceased had grown a relationship with the Respondent. Prior to his passing, they were together for six years and lived together for six months.
The Deceased’s Last Will and Testament, which was executed in 1994, named the Applicant as his sole executor (the “Estate Trustee”) and beneficiary of his estate (the “Estate”). At the time of the Deceased’s death, the Estate was valued at approximately $16,000,000.
On August 8, 2024, the Applicant filed an Application for a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee.
Subsequently, the Respondent filed a Notice of Objection, arguing that the Applicant had a conflict of interest as both the Estate Trustee and sole beneficiary. As the Respondent intended to advance a claim against the Estate “based on constructive trust and unjust enrichment as the [Deceased’s] former common-law partner”, which, if successful, would reduce the Applicant’s entitlement as the sole beneficiary, she argued the Applicant could not objectively administer the Estate. The basis for the Respondent’s constructive trust claim was services she had provided to the Deceased’s farm operation valued at $150,000 to $200,000.
The Applicant brought this application for an order under Rule 75.03(2) removing the Notice of Objection.
The Parties’ Positions
The Applicant argued the Respondent had no standing to file the Notice of Objection under Rule 75.03(1) – the caselaw is clear that the category of persons who have standing is limited to those whose claims turn on the outcome of a challenge to the (1) will or (2) issuance of a certificate of appointment. Specifically, “Potential creditors of the estate, as someone bringing a quantum meruit claim against it for services rendered would be, have never been granted standing to interfere with the administration of the estate, or dictate who should or should not be the estate trustee.”. Instead, the Respondent is free, and even encouraged, to bring an action against the Estate.
The Applicant also argued she was not in a conflict of interest, as the “duty of an estate trustee is to maximize the assets of the estate for the benefit of the beneficiaries, and to scrutinize any claims made against the estate and put creditors to the strict proof thereof where necessary and advisable”. As the sole beneficiary, she had precisely the same interest as the Estate Trustee. Justice Heeney agreed.
In contrast, the Respondent argued she was entitled to file the Notice of Objection because she “appears to have a financial interest in the estate” within the meaning of Rule 75.03(1).
The Court’s Analysis
To arrive at his conclusion, Justice Heeney reviewed:
- Rules 75.03(1) and (2);
- Smith v. Vance, 1997 CarsellOnt 1554, which the Respondent relied on – although Justice Heeney noted, it focused on the sufficiency of evidence that must be put forth to be granted standing, not what category of claimant would be entitled to seek standing (aside from a category that is not relevant to the case at hand); and
- The strong line of authority that squarely addresses this issue (including HSBC Bank Canada v. Capponi Estate, 2007 CarswellOnt 582, which relied on Belz v. Mernick Estate (2000),42 C.P.C. (4th) 357; Weidenfeld v. Parikh-Shah, 2016 ONSC 7330; and Moses v. Moses, 2021 ONSC 587, which considered Adams Estate v. Wilson, 2020 SKCA 38, and whose appeal was dismissed by the Ontario Court of Appeal, 2021 ONCA 662).
The Final Decision
Justice Heeney held the Respondent’s constructive trust claim did not give her standing to challenge the Deceased’s Will nor the appointment of the Applicant as the Estate Trustee.
Specifically, Justice Heeney noted: “She has nothing to gain by challenging the will, since she would not be a beneficiary on an intestacy. She also has nothing to gain or lose by the choice of the Estate Trustee, since it has no legal relevance to the validity of her constructive trust claim.”
As a result, the Respondent was not a person who “appears to have a financial interest in the estate” within the meaning of Rule 75.03(1) and Justice Heeney ordered the removal of the Notice of Objection.
That being said, Justice Heeney highlighted that the Respondent was not left without any remedy – she was fully entitled to commence an action against the Estate for her unjust enrichment and/or constructive trust claim, noting “It [was] puzzling why she has not done so to date.”.
The Takeaway
This decision acts as a clear reminder that a mere potential creditor of an estate is not entitled to interfere with the estate’s administration nor attempt to dictate who should be an estate trustee. On the latter point, Justice Heeney noted: “If a creditor was entitled to demand the removal of an Estate Trustee anytime that same person was a residual beneficiary, our courts would quickly be overcome with such applications, with chaotic results.”
As always, thank you for reading!
Megan Zanette