On Tuesday, I blogged about the recent decision Spellman v. Spellman, 2025 ONSC 1187, where the Court awarded punitive damages against an estate trustee for breaching his fiduciary duties to the beneficiaries by ignoring Court authority and mismanaging funds. Today, I examine another case where an estate trustee similarly breached her fiduciary duty, and which showcases the variety of remedies available to the Courts in such cases.
In Hockney v. Kneeland, 2025 ONSC 1309, Justice Myers addressed a prolonged delay in the administration of the Estate by the Respondent, a lawyer who was appointed as the sole Estate Trustee by the deceased. Her Estate was to be distributed equally among her seven grandchildren, and the Respondent informed the beneficiaries of her role and the Estate’s division shortly after the deceased’s passing.
Over the years, the Respondent provided various reasons for the delay in distributing the Estate, including issues with probate, loss of files, and personal health problems. Despite these excuses, only partial distributions were made, with $15,000 cheques issued to each beneficiary in 2017. The beneficiaries lodged complaints with the Law Society of Ontario, which resulted in a caution to the Respondent in 2018 and an undertaking in 2022 to complete the Estate administration by the end of 2022 or mid-2023. However, the Respondent failed to fulfill these commitments, and no further distributions or accountings were made. The beneficiaries have not heard from the Respondent since October 2022.
In September 2024, the beneficiaries initiated legal proceedings to compel the Respondent to account for the Estate and complete its administration. After eight attempts to serve her, the Respondent was found to have evaded service.
Like Justice Wojciechowski’s decision in Spellman, Justice Myers was critical of the Respondent’s failure to account and release approximately $150,000 in trust funds to the beneficiaries of the Estate, stating, “To say that the story told by the applicant beneficiaries is shocking on several levels does not properly express the outrage that the story ought to evoke.” As a result, the Court validated the service of the application and set strict deadlines for the Respondent to respond and participate in the proceedings.
Both cases highlight the importance of fiduciary responsibilities and the need for executors to act with transparency and diligence. While the executor in Hockney was not ordered to pay damages as in Spellman, the Court nevertheless strongly condemned these failures and reinforced the importance of accountability in estate administration.