Challenging a will or bringing an application for dependant support does not equate to entitlement to carte blanche disclosure from the affected estate. The law is quite clear that disclosure during estate litigation is a matter of judicial discretion. As noted by Justice Myers in Seepa v. Seepa, 2017 ONSC 5368, procedural matters in estate litigation like discovery are to be tailored to suit the needs of the particular case “so as to promote efficiency, affordability, and especially proportionality.” Accordingly, an estate and its beneficiaries should not be required to endure “intrusive, expansive, expensive, slow, standard form fishing expeditions that do not seem to be planned to achieve the goals of civil justice for the parties.”
In keeping with these principles, a request for corporate production during estate litigation ought to be customized to suit the particular case before the court. Other factors may also be pertinent when determining what production to order, including whether corporate production is being sought from a third party rather than the estate, the substantive issues raised by the pleadings, and whether any disclosure has already been provided voluntarily.
All of these factors came into play recently in Officer v. The Estate of Charles Officer et al., 2025 ONSC 1978. In this case, the deceased’s mother sought disclosure, including corporate production, in support of an application for dependant relief. Her son, a director and filmmaker, was involved with two corporations at the time of his death – his own production company, and another production company that he co-owned with Yanowski, a writer and producer. Like the deceased, Yanowski had his own production company, in addition to the shared production company.
Prior to the determination of the mother’s application for dependant relief, she sought extensive financial production regarding both the deceased’s production company and the shared production company. In the “spirit of cooperation,” Yanowski provided the mother with a significant amount of corporate production related to the shared production company, including share certificates, director’s resolutions, shareholder registers, officer registers, and director registers. This production was intended to confirm Yanowski’s ownership interest in the shared production company, as the mother had suggested that he was not a shareholder. Yanowski also provided document disclosure related to his own production company to confirm that he was the company’s sole shareholder.
The estate trustee administering the deceased’s estate also voluntarily provided two batches of disclosure. The first batch included records related to the deceased’s production company, including balance sheets, financial records, and bank statements, in addition to a balance sheet for the shared production company. The second batch of production included income tax returns for the deceased’s production company and a valuation report pertaining to the shared production company.
Yanowski also provided a second batch of disclosure that included income tax returns and notices of assessment for the shared production company, income tax returns and notices of assessment for his own production company, and bank statements for the shared production company dated immediately prior to the death of the deceased and several months later, reflecting that payments had been made to arms’ length creditors for legal fees and accounting fees during the intervening period.
After receiving all of this disclosure, the deceased’s mother advised that the “information and documents delivered did not satisfy” her; she continued with her application and requested further production. In terms of corporate production, she asked the court to order disclosure pertaining to the deceased’s body of work in the film industry, including all “contracts, mortgages, loans, liens, orders, judgments, wills, agreements, payments, salaries, receipts, receivables, royalties, and/or debts.” The mother also requested a list of items in Yanowski’s possession, custody or control that were related to the shared production company, including financial statements, income tax returns, notices of assessment and valuation reports.
In deciding whether to order further disclosure, Justice Faieta focused on three considerations: (a) the relevance of the evidence sought in light of the issues raised by the application for dependant support; (b) whether the production requests were reasonably tailored in light of those issues and the disclosure provided; and (c) whether the applicant had demonstrated that she could not obtain disclosure from the proper parties to the litigation.
Applying these criteria, the mother’s application for disclosure was largely dismissed, including her request for corporate production. Justice Faieta held that the mother’s request for disclosure pertaining to the deceased’s body of work was both “overbroad and unnecessary” in light of the information already provided and the information required to establish a claim for dependant support. Moreover, the court noted that granting the order “would add a further unnecessary expense … to the prejudice of the Deceased’s [three year-old] son, who is the sole beneficiary of his Estate.”
The request for the list of items in Yanowski’s possession was also dismissed, as the mother failed to explain why this disclosure was necessary. Returning to the analysis in Seepa, Justice Faieta heldthat the request lacked proportionality and appeared to be part of a fishing expedition.
The court’s decision in this case serves as an excellent reminder on two points.
- First, if corporate disclosure is provided voluntarily before an application for production is heard, it is necessary to consider whether further production is genuinely required to determine the issues at play in the litigation.
- Second, if an applicant concludes that further corporate production is required, they must be able to explain why this information is needed to resolve the issues before the court. The fact that a person can bring an application against an estate does not translate into entitlement to full disclosure regarding the deceased’s finances, particularly corporate interests held with another person.
Thank you for reading, and have a great day!
Ian.