A conflict of interest does not automatically result in the removal of an executor. A review of the case law and secondary authorities paints a coherent picture and legal baseline. For an Ontario judge to remove an executor on account of a conflict of interest s/he must be convinced that the removal is in the best interests of the estate.
In Kajaks Estate, the deceased named his stepson as executor. There were no distributions for eight years. At that point, pursuant to a court application, the executor was ordered to make interim distributions of $100,000 to each of the applicants. While the residuary beneficiary received an interim distribution, the applicants did not. The applicants went back to court and sought to find the executor in contempt of the previous order and to remove him for delay.
When a will challenger has no evidence to support the challenge, what strategy can lawyers take to inexpensively defeat the will challenge, vacate the notice of objection and move forward with probate?
Choosing an executor is a critical decision. Before choosing who should manage your estate when you die the most important task is to ask if the person contemplated is up to the job. The ideal executor will follow your wishes, know how to administer the estate, be honest and fair, and be prepared to do the job in a timely and proper fashion.
In Rubner v. Bistricer, Justice Myers of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that a simple letter created from the settlor was sufficient to create a trust.
There is a world of a difference between a fiduciary’s duty to maintain his accounts and whether a time limit exists for the beneficiary to request an accounting or to object to the accounts presented. In the context of an attorney for property’s obligation to disclose his accounts and produce his records, the regulations impose a duty on the attorney to give a copy of the accounts and records to specific people. Those regulations do not place a time limit on the people entitled to demand production.
The bond described by s. 35 of the Estates Act is meant to secure the protection of both the beneficiaries and creditors of the estate.
In the ordinary course both the Estate Trustee and the Attorney for Property are entitled to be compensated for their work. What happens if they don’t follow the common law or statutory obligations that oblige an Estate Trustee or an Attorney for Property to keep proper accounts? What happens if they wrongfully take money or breach other obligations on them? Do they still get compensated or do they just get less money? Have the courts provided a clear red line that disentitles a trustee from receiving compensation?
A parent dies and the adult children become equal beneficiaries of the residue of the parent’s Estate.The Estate is primarily made up of income producing real estate holdings that remain profitable. Some of the siblings want to continue to operate the properties, while other siblings want the properties to be sold and converted to money to be distributed to the beneficiaries. Does a beneficiary have the right to force an executor to sell real property that forms part of the Estate?
I asked this question to several very experienced lawyers. Guess What? They each had a very different answer. Let’s start by taking a look at the statute.