The Ontario Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Stingelin Estate v. Woods, 2026 ONCA 240, provides important guidance on the limited circumstances in which an estates lawyer may owe a duty of care to a non‑client. The decision confirms the courts’ continued reluctance to expand professional liability beyond well‑established boundaries, particularly in the context of will drafting and estate planning.
The case will be of interest to estate trustees, beneficiaries, and practitioners dealing with negligence claims against solicitors arising from estate matters.
Background to the Dispute
The appeal arose from a long‑running dispute rooted in a family trust arrangement established in the early 1990s. Legal title to several properties was held by the deceased pursuant to a declaration of trust for the benefit of her sister. Following the sister’s death, disagreements arose when the estate trustee declined to transfer the properties to the sister’s estate.
The estate trustee commenced an action against the solicitor who had prepared the sister’s will, alleging negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. Although the solicitor was retained solely by the testator, the estate trustee claimed to have relied on the solicitor’s legal advice and alleged that this reliance resulted in financial loss.
The motion judge dismissed the claim on summary judgment, and the estate trustee appealed.
No Duty of Care to a Stranger to the Retainer
The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the solicitor owed a duty of care to the estate trustee, who was neither the solicitor’s client nor a beneficiary under the will.
The Court reaffirmed the general rule that a lawyer’s duty of care is owed exclusively to their client. While Canadian courts have recognized a narrow exception in will‑drafting cases—where a solicitor’s negligence defeats the testator’s intention to benefit an identified beneficiary—the Court emphasized that this exception remains tightly confined.
In Stingelin, the estate trustee did not fall within this limited category. He was not named as a beneficiary, nor did the estate he represented take any benefit under the will. Recognizing a duty of care in these circumstances would have required the creation of a new category of proximity, which the Court was not prepared to do.
The Court also underscored that foreseeability, on its own, is insufficient to ground a duty of care. Even if it were foreseeable that a third party might rely on advice given to a testator, proximity remains essential. Proximity will not arise where the solicitor has undertaken to act solely for the client and owes them undivided loyalty.
The Limits of Will‑Drafting Liability
The decision expressly rejects efforts to broaden will‑drafting liability beyond established parameters. The Court confirmed that liability will not extend to beneficiaries under prior wills, individuals asserting that a testator would have made different testamentary decisions with different advice, or third parties attempting to rely indirectly on legal advice given to the testator.
In taking this approach, the Court aligned itself with appellate authority across Ontario and other provinces that has consistently resisted expanding this area of professional liability.
No Fiduciary Relationship Without an Undertaking
The appellant also argued that the solicitor owed him fiduciary duties on an ad hoc basis. The Court rejected this submission, reiterating that a fiduciary relationship requires an undertaking by the alleged fiduciary to act in the claimant’s best interests, together with the exercise of discretionary power over the claimant’s legal or practical interests.
Neither element was present. The solicitor acted exclusively for her client, and imposing fiduciary obligations toward a third party with potentially competing interests would have been incompatible with that role.
Causation and Damages
The Court further held that, even if a duty of care had been established, the claim would still have failed on causation. The losses alleged by the appellant flowed from a prior court determination confirming that the properties were beneficially owned by the sister under the original trust arrangement, rather than from any advice provided during the will‑drafting process.
This aspect of the decision underscores the importance of a clear causal connection between the alleged misconduct and the claimed loss in both negligence and fiduciary duty claims.
Key Takeaways for Estates Practice
Stingelin Estate v. Woods reinforces several settled but important principles in estates law. Duties of care owed by estates lawyers to non‑clients remain exceptional and narrowly circumscribed, and courts will continue to resist expanding will‑drafting liability beyond intended beneficiaries under a will. Fiduciary duties cannot arise in the absence of a clear undertaking to act in another’s best interests, and issues of causation and limitation periods remain effective threshold defences to professional negligence claims.
For practitioners, the decision offers reassurance that clear retainers and loyalty to the client remain fundamental safeguards. For estate trustees and beneficiaries, it highlights the limits of recourse against professionals who were never retained to act on their behalf.
Thanks for reading.