Nov 20, 2025
Each time a new matter is commenced with the Superior Court of Justice (“SCJ”), you are provided with a unique court file number. There are two main formats in which the SCJ has issued court file numbers (“CFN”), which in this blog I will refer to as the “old” and “new” formats.
The old CFN format is as follows: _ _ – _ _ _ / _ _. The first five digits represent the court’s internal case or file number. The last two digits represent the year in which the CFN was issued. For example, if your CFN was issued in 2025, it would read _ _ – _ _ _ / 25.
The new CFN format is as follows: CV -_ _ – _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ – 00ES (or 0000). The first two digits represent the year in which the CFN was issued. For example, if your CFN was issued in 2025, it would read CV-25-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -00ES (or 0000). The next eight digits represent the court’s internal case or file number. The final four digits are an extension and will always either be 00ES or 0000. The first, 00ES, is used only by the Toronto Estates Court, which is a division of Toronto Superior Court of Justice. The second, 0000, is more commonly used by other regions of the Superior Court of Justice.
Oftentimes when you have an older file that is still active, you need to convert the old CFN format to the new one. For instance, when filing materials online, the JSO portal will not accept the old CFN formatting. In this case, you need to do the following:
Old CFN: 01-123-25
New CFN: CV-25-00001123-00ES (or 0000)
- Begin with the prefix ‘CV-‘.
- Take the last two digits of the old CFN and insert it after the ‘CV-‘ in the new CFN. The first two digits will be ‘25’, as this is the year the CFN was issued.
- Take the next five digits of the old CFN and add three zeros in front it. Then, insert these eight digits (i.e., ‘00001123’) into the new CFN after ‘-25-‘.
- If the matter is with the Toronto Estates court, the last four digits of the new CFN will be ‘00ES’, otherwise for civil matters, the last four digits will be ‘0000’.
I hope this proves helpful and takes some of the mystery out of converting old court file numbers!
Hannah Henley
Nothing contained in this post constitutes legal advice or establishes a solicitor-client relationship. If you have any questions regarding your legal rights or legal obligations, you should consult a lawyer.
Nov 4, 2025
The first few months of law school can feel overwhelming. I remember worrying about moving to a new city, establishing friendships, and adapting to a teaching style that was completely different from anything I had experienced before. Adding extracurricular commitments to an already full schedule was the last thing on my mind.
Yet, it felt like everyone around me was enthusiastically joining clubs and activities. Not wanting to get left behind, I somewhat-reluctantly followed suit. Looking back, deciding to get involved was one of the most valuable decisions I made in law school.
Here are some of the benefits:
Networking and Mentorship
Getting involved outside of class gave me plenty of opportunities to meet other students, professors and practicing lawyers. This was a game-changer because I quickly learned that upper-year students are the best resource for outlines, study tips, and advice about second and third-year courses. It was also great to connect with practicing lawyers because they offered firsthand insights into their areas of practice and daily work. Some of these relationships have turned into ongoing support networks that have become a huge asset now that I’ve started my career.
Discovering Different Types of Law
During my second year of law school, I joined the Queen’s Elder Law Clinic (“QELC”) as a student caseworker, where I drafted Wills and Power of Attorney documents for older adults in the Kingston area. This experience introduced me to estate litigation – a field I immediately connected with, and one that I wish had received more attention in my first-year courses. Thanks to this introduction, I applied to (and now work at) Casey & Moss, a firm that exclusively practices in the area of Estates and Trusts. Without my involvement at the QELC, I’m not sure if I would have ended up working in an area that I’m so passionate about.
Developing Practical Skills
During my first year, I spent time mooting (a type of simulated court for students to practice oral advocacy). This provided a fantastic introduction to courtroom procedure, legal research and writing, and developing persuasive oral arguments. At the QELC, I learned essential skills like time docketing, effective client communication, and how to prioritize urgent tasks. These practical abilities made the transition from student to lawyer much smoother and remain integral to my daily work.
Demonstrating Genuine Interest
While interviewing for jobs, I was initially concerned about standing out among other candidates. However, much of my interview time was spent discussing the things I did outside of the classroom. In hindsight, this makes a lot of sense. Law firms, particularly those specializing in niche practice areas, are looking for students who are genuinely interested in the type of law they practice. Participating in related clubs, clinics, and moots is one of the best ways to display an authentic interest in a given field.
Getting involved in law school helps you build skills, meet people, and find out what really interests you. Even if it feels overwhelming at first, the connections and experiences you gain will stick with you well beyond graduation and can make a big difference as you start your career.
Colleen Dowling
Nothing contained in this post constitutes legal advice or establishes a solicitor-client relationship. If you have any questions regarding your legal rights or legal obligations, you should consult a lawyer.
Oct 31, 2025
This is my first blog as a proud new lawyer at this fantastic firm, and I’ve decided to write about the role of financial institutions – banks in particular – in the early stages of estate litigation. The reason for this topic is in that this past year, banks have managed to play a big role in some of my and my colleagues’ files despite having no stake in the litigation.
I’ve created two scenarios, based upon these experiences, which will illustrate how banks can shape the early stages of estate litigation. My hope is that these scenarios can aid in understanding what banks may or may not do – which in turn, may help frame client expectations and inform early strategic decisions.
Scenario #1
Your client is the estate trustee and residue beneficiary of an estate. They have been acting for well over a year and have disposed of all the estate property and have distributed multiple cash legacies. All that remains is the residue. The accountant is waiting for a clearance certificate and anticipates no issues in that regard.
Your client decides to withdraw the residue now that everything appears OK.
When your client arrives at the bank, they are informed that the estate account has been frozen. The bank received a letter which indicated that ‘probate was being challenged’. The bank refuses to disclose any further information.
Your client calls you, obviously very concerned and stressed. They were really relying on this money. So, you contact the bank and they inform you of a few things:
- The letter did NOT enclose a court order, judgment, or writ authorizing the freeze.
- The letter was from a lawyer, who appeared to be representing a friend of the deceased.
- The friend was seeking to challenge the Will; however, they had not commenced proceedings of any kind.
- They refused to disclose the contact information of the lawyer until they obtained the other lawyer’s consent.
The authority that the bank was relying upon to freeze the account was the terms and conditions of their personal chequing accounts. As the estate account had formerly been a personal account, the estate account was bound to those terms. The terms allow the bank to unilaterally freeze accounts, without notice to account holders, if it is ‘unclear’ who the funds in the account belong to. The ‘freezing clause’ is a standard form term in all personal account agreements across the ‘Big 5’ Canadian banks.
You write a letter, demonstrating that your client is the only person with authority to act and arguing that the residue is held in trust for them, but the bank does not care. They advise that they ‘take no position’, and that they will be requiring either a court order or the consent of all parties, to unfreeze the account.
This is a paradoxical non-position: inert yet immensely prejudicial. Schrodinger would be proud.
To be fair to the bank and their policy, there is an obvious concern for liability. Yet the same terms that authorize the freeze also contain a waiver and indemnity, and where a bank obeys the authority of probate, who could realistically fault the bank for doing so?
Overall, this was a fantastic early victory for the Will challenger. Without going to Court, they’ve managed to obtain essentially a Mareva injunction. Where there is a risk of dissipation, parties should consider writing, at first instance, to all banks where the testator may have had accounts. The banks’ internal policies, terms, and conditions regarding personal accounts and estate accounts may result in a timely and effective freeze.
Scenario #2
Your client is a director and minority shareholder of a family business. The family business has been struggling with no business or activity in many months, but it remains the beneficiary of a sizeable life insurance policy insuring the life of your client’s father. Your client’s father was also a director and a majority shareholder of the family business. The father’s Will appoints your client’s brother as Estate Trustee. Your client and his brother are residue beneficiaries.
Your client’s father passes away, and the policy becomes payable. It is not technically an estate asset, although it benefits the family business to which both your client and his brother are entitled.
Unbeknownst to your client, the brother, who has yet to obtain probate, writes to the bank asking for the business accounts to be frozen based upon his authority as the named Estate Trustee and expressing concern that your client may steal company funds. The brother is highly suspicious and does not trust your client in the slightest. The brother believes that your client will abscond with the life insurance funds through his position as director/shareholder. The brother eventually intends to pursue legal action on behalf of the estate against your client and claims there is troubling evidence that your client has committed wrongdoing.
You help your client investigate and you later find out that the bank denied his brother’s demand. Their position was that as his brother was not an authorized signatory to the corporate accounts, the bank would not freeze the account without a Court order. It turns out that the terms and conditions of corporate accounts are much less draconian than personal accounts, and further, they impose a burden upon the corporate accountholder to ensure account security. When considering requests to freeze corporate accounts, it seems the banks rely solely upon who is an authorized signatory (and a handy waiver/indemnity).
Perhaps if the brother had probate, the bank would have listened. However, the challenger in Scenario #1 certainly did not have probate – and yet the bank still felt compelled to freeze the account.
I’m sure I will encounter more scenarios such as these in the future, where banks will influence the nature of litigation early on with profound consequences. Knowing that banks will take these types of ‘non-positions’ can help frame client expectations and encourage early action where it benefits client interests.
Matias Gutierrez
Nothing contained in this post constitutes legal advice or establishes a solicitor-client relationship. If you have any questions regarding your legal rights or legal obligations, you should consult a lawyer.
Oct 8, 2025
When a loved one passes away, their executor (the person named in the will to manage the estate) steps into a huge responsibility. They must pay bills, manage assets, and distribute property to beneficiaries. Sounds straightforward, right?
Not always.
One Ontario case, Zimmerman v. McMichael Estate, shows exactly what can go wrong when executors don’t keep proper records. The court’s message was clear: executors must document everything, or risk personal consequences.
What Happened in Zimmerman v. McMichael Estate?
At the heart of the Zimmerman case was a simple, but critical, problem: the executor had not kept proper records of how estate assets were handled. Beneficiaries grew suspicious that money had been mishandled, and when they asked for an accounting, the executor could not produce satisfactory documentation.
The court ultimately found that this lack of transparency was unacceptable. Executors are fiduciaries, meaning the law requires them to act with honesty, care, and loyalty to the beneficiaries. That duty includes maintaining a clear record of every decision and transaction made on behalf of the estate. Without proper documentation, the executor could not prove that they had fulfilled their obligations.
What This Means for Executors
The Zimmerman case serves as a cautionary tale for anyone serving as an executor. Even if an executor is acting in good faith, failing to keep proper records can backfire. Without receipts, statements, or written explanations, beneficiaries may begin to question whether funds were used appropriately. Once trust is lost, disputes are far more likely to end up in court.
Executors must remember that they can be held personally accountable if they cannot justify their decisions. In the Zimmerman case, the court made it clear that the burden of proof rests on the executor, not the beneficiaries. This means that careful and consistent record-keeping is not just best practice – it is essential for protecting both the estate and the executor.
How Good Records Protect Families
Keeping good records benefits everyone involved in the estate process. For executors, proper documentation provides a shield against false accusations or misunderstandings. It allows them to show, step by step, that they carried out their duties responsibly and in line with the law.
For beneficiaries, good records build confidence in the process. They can see exactly how assets are being managed and distributed, which reduces suspicion and helps preserve family relationships at a time when emotions may already be strained. Most importantly, proper record-keeping prevents unnecessary litigation, saving the estate both time and money!
How Executors Can Stay on Track
Being an executor can feel overwhelming, especially if it’s your first time taking on the role. The reassuring news is that you don’t have to navigate it alone. Keeping receipts, bank records, and important correspondence together in one place goes a long way in staying organized, and offering regular updates to beneficiaries helps build trust and keep the process running smoothly.
If you feel unsure about the process, it’s completely normal to reach out to a lawyer or accountant for guidance. They can take some of the weight off your shoulders and make sure everything is done properly. By staying organized and asking for help when needed, you can carry out your duties with confidence and peace of mind.
The Takeaway from Zimmerman v. McMichael Estate
The lesson from this case is straightforward: record-keeping is not optional. Executors must document every action they take in administering an estate. Doing so protects them from liability, reassures beneficiaries, and ensures that the wishes of the deceased are respected.
Diana Begaliyeva
Nothing contained in this post constitutes legal advice or establishes a solicitor-client relationship. If you have any questions regarding your legal rights or legal obligations, you should consult a lawyer.
Oct 8, 2025
I love hearing from readers of our blogs. It’s exciting to know people are reading and thinking about them, but beyond that, it’s such a pleasure to connect with other lawyers and discuss the law, outside of any specific dispute.
In my blog of January 9, 2024, When Does Marriage Revoke a Will, I puzzled about the Bill 245 amendments to sections 15 and 16 of the Succession Law Reform Act, which repealed the sections on marriage revoking a Will, and when those amendments could be said to take effect. Did they apply only to marriages after December 31, 2021 (the date the amendments took effect), only to Wills made after that date, or only for Deceased people who died after that date? Without a transition provision, it was not entirely clear.
Since writing that blog, I have heard from counsel who argued the case that the court has decided this issue. In Bolotenko v Wright Estate, 2025 ONSC 1154, the estate trustee, Aleksandr Bolotenko, sought direction from the court on whether Bill 245 applied retroactively. In that case, the Deceased died in April 2022 (after the SLRA amendments), his Will was dated March 8, 1999, and he married in February 2003. The estate trustee sought direction on whether the Bill 245 applied retroactively such that the Will was not revoked. The court held that there was no retroactive application: any marriage before January 1, 2022 had the effect of revoking any existing Will.
Now comes an interesting twist, flagged for me by another lawyer/blog reader. If the repeal of SLRA section 15(a) (which previously stated that a Will is revoked by marriage) only applies to marriages after December 31, 2021, does the repeal of the saving provisions in section 16 have a similarly delayed application?
Section 16 was repealed in its entirety by Bill 245. Previously, it set out specific situations where a Will could remain in effect despite a subsequent marriage:
16 A will is revoked by the marriage of the testator except where,
(a) there is a declaration in the will that it is made in contemplation of the marriage;
(b) the spouse of the testator elects to take under the will, by an instrument in writing signed by the spouse and filed within one year after the testator’s death in the office of the Estate Registrar for Ontario; or
(c) the will is made in exercise of a power of appointment of property which would not in default of the appointment pass to the heir, executor or administrator of the testator or to the persons entitled to the estate of the testator if he or she died intestate. R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26, s. 16.
Logically, it seems that the timing of the section 16 revocation must follow that of section 15(a). If marriages before January 1, 2022 revoked existing Wills, then the section 16 provisions remain in place to save such Wills that would otherwise be revoked. The court in Bolotenko v Wright Estate applied as much. The court at paragraphs 1-2 considers whether the Will had any saving provision as described in the old section 16 (a). This seems to suggest that section applies in its entirety to pre-January 1, 2022 marriages. For example, a spouse could continue to elect under the old section 16(b) to take under the Will, regardless of its revocation.
I look forward to reading and hearing more about the court’s consideration of these provisions!
Laura Cardiff
Nothing contained in this post constitutes legal advice or establishes a solicitor-client relationship. If you have any questions regarding your legal rights or legal obligations, you should consult a lawyer.
