Estates and Trusts – Estates – Actions involving personal representatives
Deceased died intestate in Mexico. Appellant sister and respondent brothers were declared his sole heirs by Mexican court. Sister was appointed estate trustee. Rift developed between siblings over administration of estate and one brother sought to have sister removed as administrator. Motion was adjourned but was expected to be heard at same time as passing of accounts. Key issue that arose between parties involved distribution of remaining art work. Sister was selling art work with view to distributing residue of estate as money and brothers wanted to receive some of residue of estate in form of paintings. Brothers brought successful motion to appoint Estate Trustee During Litigation (“ETDL”). Master found that administration of estate was neither simple nor straightforward and had become highly adversarial. Master found that artwork might be disposed of by time accounts were passed, and brothers' interests would thereby be defeated. Master found that handling of remaining artwork in either selling artwork over brothers' objections or in making plans with regards to future rights of artwork without informing or consulting brothers was unreasonable and ran contrary to sister's obligations as estate trustee to act only in interests of beneficiaries. Master determined that sister was position of conflict in this litigation. Master issued order for appointment of ETDL. Sister appealed. Appeal dismissed. There was no error in Master's application of relevant and appropriate principles regarding appointment of ETDL to findings of fact. Brothers argued that any terms of order that went beyond what was contemplated in Master's decision were agreed to by parties. Sister contended that once Master signed order, it became Master's order and if there were aspects of order that exceeded her jurisdiction, entire order had to be set aside. Order did contain provisions that were either unclear, exceeded Master's jurisdiction or went beyond parameters of Master's decision. However, that did not mean parties got to set aside entire decision and start over. Instead, parties should either redraft order themselves or, if unable to come to agreement, they should return to Master to set terms of order such that it reflects Master's intentions and remained within her authority. Order to be amended by parties accordingly.
Baran v. Cranston (2020), 2020 CarswellOnt 1673, 2020 ONSC 589, Parfett J. (Ont. Div. Ct.); affirmed (2019), 2019 CarswellOnt 8646, 2019 ONSC 3127, Master Fortier (Ont. S.C.J.).
Case Law is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. These cases may be found online in WestlawNext Canada. To subscribe, please visit store.thomsonreuters.ca
