When a testator appoints an executor in a Will, the expectation is diligent administration and a timely probate process. When an executor instead stalls administration for nearly two years and treats the resulting motion as an afterthought, the estate is placed at risk and beneficiaries are left in a difficult position. In Lessard v. Culic et al., 2026 ONSC 1814, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice delivered a pointed lesson on fiduciary accountability and personal cost exposure that applies to any executor.
The Background
The deceased executed his Will on May 29, 2020, and passed away on November 23, 2023. He appointed a lawyer, Clinton, as executor. His stepdaughter, Shelley, was a residual beneficiary of an estate valued at more than $1,000,000, comprising two properties, personal effects, vehicles, cash, and investments.
For nearly two years following the death, Clinton did not apply for a Certificate of Appointment and did not provide Shelley with any information about the estate’s assets, liabilities, or administration. Matters became more pressing when one of the estate properties was expected to become vacant imminently. Shelley sought Clinton’s consent to the appointment of a neutral Estate Trustee During Litigation to protect the estate. He refused without reasons, forcing Shelley to bring a motion. Despite being duly served and subject to an endorsed timetable, Clinton did not file responding materials and did not attend the hearing on November 25, 2025.
The Cost Ruling
As the successful party, Shelley sought $20,708.74 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis, payable personally by Clinton. Rather than filing a proper Response to Cost Submissions, Clinton sent a letter to the Court adopting and reproducing informal notes provided by another lawyer. Those notes suggested the hourly rates were “somewhat high” and the number of hours “seems a bit high,” but did not specify what rates or hours would have been appropriate, and cited no authority. Clinton offered an Outlook calendar mishap as an explanation for missing the hearing, but did not explain his failure to file materials or apologize for his non-attendance.
Justice Sirivar rejected these submissions in their entirety and ordered Clinton to pay $20,708.74 personally on a substantial indemnity basis, under section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court found that a pattern of non-responsiveness had impeded the administration of the estate, that Clinton’s refusal to consent to an ETDL had necessitated the motion, and that his approach to costs reflected a lack of respect for the Court process.
Practice Takeaways
- Being named executor creates active fiduciary obligations that apply equally to lay and professional trustees. Stalling probate and refusing to communicate with residual beneficiaries can result in personal cost liability regardless of the executor’s background.
- Where an executor stalls or refuses to protect vulnerable assets such as an imminently vacant property, beneficiaries can move under section 28 of the Estates Act and Rule 75.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for the appointment of an Estate Trustee During Litigation.
- Treating a cost motion informally, without proper responding materials, analysis, evidence, or authority, is unlikely to succeed and may itself contribute to an elevated cost award.
Conclusion
Lessard v. Culic et al. is a cautionary decision for anyone considering accepting appointment as an estate trustee, whether a professional or a family member. An executor must administer the estate with diligence, respond to reasonable inquiries from beneficiaries, and take the Court process seriously. Where those duties are not met, the Court has shown that it is prepared to order costs personally and on a substantial indemnity basis, rather than allowing the estate, and by extension the beneficiaries, to bear the burden.
Thank you for reading!
Osama Saleemi