In the Estate of Christina Georgiou Psoma, 2025 ONSC 1476, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice was tasked with resolving a surprisingly complex estate dispute that spiraled into formal litigation over what Justice Leach described as a “relatively modest” estate.
Overview
Christina passed away in Ontario, on October 12, 2021, at the age of 86. She left no children, had been briefly married (annulled decades earlier), and had no surviving spouse. Her family consisted of an extended network of nieces, nephews, and their children—many of whom featured prominently in her life and later in her will.
In 2002, Christina executed a formal Last Will and Testament. Among other provisions, she:
- Appointed her nephew Steve as her sole executor and trustee.
- Gave cash legacies totaling $20,000 to three relatives.
- Devised real property in Cyprus to various family members.
- Bequeathed the residue of her estate equally to Steve and her niece, Zevoulla.
However, before her death, Christina disposed of all her real estate in Cyprus via inter vivos transfers, rendering those testamentary gifts moot. The only known estate assets remaining at the time of her death were:
- A bank account with ~$1,000.
- A $2,500 CPP death benefit.
- A $10,006.16 life insurance policy (designating Steve personally as beneficiary).
The Conflict
Despite these modest assets, Zevoulla and her son Panayiotios raised serious concerns about Steve’s handling of the estate. Their allegations included:
- That Steve failed to probate the will.
- That he withheld information from beneficiaries.
- That he benefited personally from joint accounts and insurance proceeds that rightfully belonged to the estate.
- That certain inter vivos arrangements, including a $24,000 “roofing agreement” between Steve and Christina, were either invalid or improperly documented.
Ex Parte Motion
In October 2023, Zevoulla brought an ex parte motion under Rule 74.15(1)(h), requesting an order compelling Steve to pass accounts. Justice Mitchell granted the order, requiring Steve to file a formal accounting for the period October 12, 2021 to October 30, 2023.
Steve complied—but not without challenge. He argued that the order was improperly obtained and based on material non-disclosure.
Steve’s counsel contended that Zevoulla’s motion failed to disclose a key 2022 conversation between their former lawyers, in which Steve’s lawyer provided an informal accounting and believed the matter to be settled. This, they argued, constituted a breach of Rule 39.01(6), which imposes a “heavy obligation” on parties seeking ex parte relief to disclose all material facts.
While Justice Leach acknowledged the concern—and expressed sympathy for Steve’s frustration—he declined to set aside the order. Steve, he held, had ample opportunity to challenge the order earlier through a motion under Rule 37.14(1)(a) but failed to act. By complying with the order and participating in the litigation, Steve waived the opportunity to attack it later.
Key Procedural Lessons – Part I
- Informal resolution is not a legal shield. Even if you think the matter is “put to bed,” if there’s no written closure, it may come back to life.
- Don’t delay if you oppose an ex parte order. Once you’re served, file a motion to set it aside right away.
- Litigation must be proportionate. Courts frown on costly proceedings over small estates. Counsel should balance advocacy with practicality.
Read “Part II: In the Estate of Christina Georgiou Psoma, 2025 ONSC 1476 – Accounting Obligations, Life Insurance Proceeds, and Debt Claims” on Psoma this coming Friday, where we will cover how the case dealt with:
- The limits of a trustee’s obligation to account.
- The legal treatment of life insurance proceeds.
- The contested debt claims.
Thanks for reading and have a great day!