Estate litigation frequently places counsel at the intersection of law and family trauma. Will challenges, capacity disputes, dependant support claims, and trustee litigation often arise in circumstances marked by bereavement, fractured relationships, allegations of wrongdoing, and long-standing emotional wounds. For many clients, the litigation process itself—particularly the requirement to swear affidavits, undergo cross-examinations, and confront their family’s past at mediation or in the courtroom—can reopen wounds that never fully healed.
For those reasons, Justice Akbarali’s remarks at the Estates List Judges’ Dinner on April 22, 2026 regarding a trauma-informed trial struck as good food for thought for estate litigators. Her Honour’s discussion focused on a trauma‑informed trial in S. v. Ukraine International Airlines JSC, 2024 ONSC 3303 (the “Ukraine Airlines Case“), over which she presided. The case offers a concrete example of how courts and counsel can respond to trauma in a principled, structured way—without compromising fairness or a party’s substantive rights and, rather, strengthening the integrity of the adversarial process.
The Ukraine Airlines Case and the Trauma‑Informed Trial
The Ukraine Airlines Case arose from claims of passengers killed when Ukraine International Airlines Flight PS752 was shot down by military personnel over Tehran shortly after takeoff on January 8, 2020.
Since much of the evidence presented at trial was expected to be traumatic, counsel jointly prepared Trauma‑Informed Trial Guidelines in advance of trial, with the goal of minimizing trauma for witnesses, observers, counsel, court staff, and other trial participants.
Why This Matters in Estate Litigation
Although the Ukraine Airlines Case did not arise in the estates context, the principles underpinning the trauma‑informed approach will resonate with those practising in estate litigation. Claims are often emotionally-charged, with clients grieving, angry, guilt‑ridden, or struggling with family betrayal. The act of putting painful family history into affidavit form—or hearing it contested in court—can immediately resurface past trauma.
From a practical perspective, unaddressed trauma can also affect the litigation itself. Clients who feel overwhelmed or unsafe may struggle to give coherent evidence, may disengage from counsel, or may make decisions that are contrary to their own long‑term interests. Emotional distress can become a barrier to resolution, including at mediation, where clients are often asked to revisit the very events that caused the litigation.
Applying Trauma‑Informed Principles to Estates Practice
In the Ukraine Airlines Case, the guidelines addressed how trauma manifests and how participants might recognize trauma responses in themselves or others. The guidelines offered practical tools for coping with distress before, during, and after trial. Importantly, the guidelines did not attempt to soften evidence or shield parties from difficult facts. Rather, they acknowledged the reality that confronting traumatic evidence can have real psychological consequences—and that anticipating those impacts can help participants engage more effectively with the process.
As Justice Akbarali suggested, the guidelines used in the Ukraine Airlines Case offer a framework that estate litigators can implement—informally or formally—into everyday practice, in and outside the courtroom.
Advance notice is one example. Preparing clients for difficult evidence, lines of questioning, or emotionally charged family dynamics allows them to engage more deliberately and with fewer surprises. Similarly, ensuring clients understand when and how breaks can be taken, and that stepping out momentarily does not signal weakness or non‑compliance, can reduce stress and anxiety.
The guidelines also emphasized the importance of clear communication, empathy, and validating a participant’s experience without compromising professional boundaries or advocacy roles. Even small adjustments—such as explaining procedure in plain language, flagging sensitive topics before they arise, or checking in after particularly difficult steps in the process—can make a meaningful difference.
These principles may be especially important when dealing with self‑represented parties. Self‑represented litigants often think of the justice system as confusing and intimidating, even without the added weight of trauma. Being mindful of their situation and applying trauma‑informed practices can help reduce escalation, improve communication, and contribute to a more manageable process for everyone involved.
Trauma‑Informed Practice and Access to Justice
Trauma‑informed lawyering is closely tied to access to justice. Clients who feel safe, informed, and supported are better able to participate meaningfully in their own cases. They are more likely to understand their options, give reliable evidence, and engage constructively in resolution discussions.
None of this eliminates the emotional difficulty inherent in estate litigation. In many cases, some degree of emotional resurfacing is unavoidable. But having guidelines—or even shared professional norms—that acknowledge trauma and respond to it consciously can reduce unnecessary harm.
Justice Akbarali’s discussion and the trial framework adopted in the Ukraine Airlines Case invite estate litigators to reflect on how we practise. The question is not whether estate litigation is emotionally difficult—it plainly is. The question is whether we are doing enough, within our existing structures, to ensure that the pursuit of legal rights does not inflict avoidable additional harm on those who have already experienced significant trauma, loss, and hardship.
When thoughtfully carried out, trauma‑informed practices have the potential to improve not only client well‑being, but also the quality and effectiveness of estates advocacy itself.
Thank you for reading, and have a great day!
By Jordyn Sanford