In the recent decision of Iannace v. Iannace, 2025 ONSC 2542, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed a complex will challenge involving allegations of undue influence, intergenerational conflict, and unilateral estate administration. The ruling, delivered by Myers J., offers pointed guidance to estate trustees and litigators alike on what not to do when navigating contested estates.
The applicant, Frank Iannace, challenged a 2020 will executed by his father Mario, which disinherited him and appointed his brother Peter as sole beneficiary and estate trustee. Frank alleged undue influence, highlighting that Peter was present during the will drafting, acted as translator, and that the lawyer’s advice for independent execution was ignored.
Despite the absence of any concrete evidence of incapacity, the Court held there was a serious issue to be tried on the grounds of undue influence. The circumstances surrounding the will’s execution – particularly Peter’s omnipresent role – raised “suspicious circumstances” sufficient to shift the evidentiary burden to Peter at trial.
Notably, the Court granted a Certificate of Pending Litigation on one estate property (Hamptonbrook Drive), and ordered preservation of proceeds from a corporate sale (Steeles Avenue) to protect Frank’s potential beneficial interest in the estate. The Court was clear: Peter’s encumbrance of estate assets to the tune of $1 million without notice was improper, especially while litigation was pending.
Myers J. emphasized that this case is “about money” – and about the responsibility of an estate trustee to conduct themselves with fairness and transparency, even when they believe their entitlement is secure.
The decision offers three critical lessons:
- Suspicious Circumstances Don’t Need a “Smoking Gun”: Peter’s presence during the will’s execution, especially as a translator, was enough to warrant scrutiny. The Court underscored the importance of independence and legal safeguards, especially when drastic changes to estate plans are being made late in life.
- Fiduciary Obligations Still Matter in Disputed Estates: Even if an estate trustee believes they are the rightful beneficiary, they must act with scrupulous care. Myers J. questioned Peter’s decision to mortgage the estate property while a legal challenge to his authority was pending, calling it a “brazen” and unilateral act.
- Relief Is Available Pending Trial: The Court found that preservation orders and CPLs were necessary to prevent an “empty judgment.” Importantly, this is not execution before judgment – it is protection against potential dissipation by a fiduciary operating under a cloud of suspicion.
Ultimately, Iannace reminds us that estate litigation is not only about proving undue influence or incapacity – it is about the process. Trustees who disregard legal advice, ignore best practices, or act unilaterally during litigation do so at their peril.
This decision also serves as a warning: when in doubt, estate trustees should disclose, consult, and when necessary, seek directions from the court. Failure to do so not only undermines the estate but exposes trustees to personal liability and litigation costs.
Boris