Overview:
In a recent decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in McNeill v. Phillips, 2025 ONSC 5779 , the court was asked to address a highly emotional and contentious estate dispute. The plaintiff, the biological child of the deceased, brought an action against the deceased’s spouse who was appointed as her attorney for personal care and estate trustees. The central allegation was that the defendant failed to notify the plaintiff of the deceased’s illness and death, excluded her from the funeral, and thereby caused her emotional harm.
The plaintiff sought $850,000 in damages along with interest, costs, and various forms of interlocutory relief, including freezing the estate assets and production of medical and telephone records.
The defendant denied all allegations and stated that his conduct was in accordance with the express wishes of the deceased. He acted pursuant to a valid Power of Attorney for Personal Care and a Last Will and Testament.
The defendant also brought a motion to strike the Statement of Claim in its entirety under Rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff, meanwhile, sought her own interlocutory relief.
Given the overlap in the issues raised by both parties, the motions were heard together.
No Reasonable Cause of Action Found Under Rule 21.01(1)(b)
Legal Framework for Negligence Claims
The court first considered whether the plaintiff’s claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action under Rule 21.01(1)(b). The plaintiff had framed her claim as one of negligence, not a formal challenge to the Will or Power of Attorney.
Applying the four-part test from Mustapha v. Culligan, the court reiterated that to establish negligence, a plaintiff must show a duty of care, breach of that duty, resulting damage, and a causal connection between the breach and the harm suffered.
No Duty Owed to the Plaintiff
In this case, the court held that there is no recognized legal duty between competent adults—even in close familial relationships—that would require one adult to inform another about a third party’s medical status or death. No dependency relationship was alleged or supported by any facts.
The court further emphasized that once the Power of Attorney for Personal Care was invoked, the defendant’s legal duty was owed solely to the grantor, under the Substitute Decisions Act and Health Care Consent Act. The law does not require attorneys to share information with third parties, including biological children, unless expressly instructed to do so.
The court further notes that plaintiff’s assertion that she was excluded from the funeral, based on what she believed the deceased would have wanted, was found to be purely speculative and unsupported by evidence.
As such, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s claim failed to disclose a viable cause of action and struck it under Rule 21.01(1)(b).
Claim Also Struck Under Rule 25.11 as Frivolous and Abusive
Court Finds Abuse of Process
The court went further, holding that even if the claim had survived Rule 21.01(1)(b), it would be independently struck under Rule 25.11 as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. Several factors supported this conclusion.
The court found that the primary motive behind the claim was personal vindication—not legal redress. The plaintiff’s own pleadings revealed a pre-existing history of emotional estrangement from the deceased. The Statement of Claim also included inflammatory and irrelevant allegations, particularly against the defendant’s family, that had no legal significance.
Affidavit Based on Speculation
The court also found the plaintiff’s affidavit to be filled with speculative and unfounded assertions, including unsupported claims about the existence of “mirrored wills.” There was no factual basis for many of the key allegations.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiff was primarily motivated by dissatisfaction with the Will and a desire to obtain a benefit from the estate, not by any enforceable legal right.
Requests for Disclosure and Freezing Order Denied
No Right to Private Medical or Estate Records
Although the underlying claim had been dismissed, the court still addressed the plaintiff’s requests for production of documents and a freezing order over the estate’s assets. It found that the plaintiff had no legal entitlement to the deceased’s medical records or the defendant’s phone logs. Fiduciary duties under a Power of Attorney do not extend to uninvolved adult children unless specifically provided for.
The plaintiff did not demonstrate any legal standing to access these records. There was no evidence that she had been named on any hospital call list, and the court found no legal basis to compel production. These requests were deemed speculative and improper.
Injunction Test Not Satisfied
The plaintiff also failed to meet the legal test for an interlocutory injunction. There was no serious issue to be tried, no evidence of irreparable harm, and the defendant established that a freezing order would harm the estate’s administration by triggering tax liabilities and disrupting insurance coverage.
No Leave to Amend the Claim
Although the plaintiff did not formally seek leave to amend, the court considered whether it should be granted. Typically, leave to amend is only denied in clear cases where no tenable claim can be pleaded.
This was found to be such a case. None of the plaintiff’s complaints, even if reframed, could support a valid cause of action. The court added that any challenge to the Will would require a new proceeding, framed according to the proper legal and procedural requirements.
Final Disposition and Costs
The Statement of Claim was struck in its entirety, without leave to amend. The motions for disclosure and a freezing order were dismissed. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs in the amount of $10,783.53, with post-judgment interest.
The court emphasized that the lawsuit was not grounded in law but was instead an attempt to express personal grief and indirectly challenge the estate through improper legal means.
Conclusion: Emotion Is Not a Substitute for Law
This decision serves as a reminder that negligence claims in the estate context must be rooted in clear legal duties and supported by material facts. Personal pain, emotional estrangement, or perceived unfairness while real, do not amount to actionable claims unless the legal elements are properly pled and evidenced.
The court reaffirmed that the litigation process must not be used to pursue personal vindication or to bypass the proper legal avenues for challenging testamentary documents.
This case further underscores negligence claims in estate matters must be legally viable; access to private records requires standing and statutory authority; and courts will not tolerate proceedings brought for collateral or emotional purposes.
Thanks for reading!