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.
Oct 3, 2025
As the first point of contact for our firm, I receive numerous calls from potential clients seeking legal advice and assistance with respect to estates and wills.
The following are three commonly asked questions and answers to these questions:
1. Probate
Q: I am named as the executor and estate trustee in a Will. I am at a loss. Where do I start?
A: Reaching out for legal advice is the first step, which you have taken.
As an executor and estate trustee, you may have to probate the Will and obtain a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee (CAET).
In a case where the deceased died intestate (without a Will), before you start an application for probate it is recommended that you check whether anyone else has already started a court application or has been issued a certificate. This can avoid an objection to your application.
It is also important to know the value of the estate and what makes up the estate, for example, real estate and personal assets.
You can apply for a Small Estate Certificate if the estate is valued at up to $150,000. If the estate is valued at more than $150,000, generally, you should apply for a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee.
When applying for the CAET, you will need to supply the court with the following original documents:
- Probate Application for a Certificate
- Request to File an Application for a Certificate
- Draft Certificate
- Last Will and Testament of the deceased (if available) and Affidavit of Execution
- Original or notarized copy of the Proof of Death Certificate for the deceased
- Cheque for estate administration tax (also known as probate tax)
Within 180 calendar days of receiving the CAET, you must file an Estate Information Return (EIR), which lists the value of the deceased’s assets at the time of death with the Ministry of Finance.
(For further information on how to obtain assets from financial institutions, please see our blog of July 18, 2025 by Olesya Johnson).
2. Joint Accounts
Q: I held joint accounts with the deceased and the bank is asking for a probate certificate before they can release the money. Why?
A: Some joint accounts may or may not fall within the value of the estate.
A joint account with right of survivorship is an account held by two or more people where the surviving account holder(s) receive the funds upon the deceased’s death and generally does not need to go through probate.
In the case of joint spousal accounts, they typically fall outside the estate by right of survivorship.
However, in the case of joint accounts between parent and child, it could fall within the estate under the presumption of resulting trust. In this case, the bank may require the estate trustee to obtain a probate certificate before releasing the funds.
The testator’s intention as to whether the joint account is to be shared with other beneficiaries of the estate or simply pass directly to the survivor should be considered.
(For further information on joint accounts and the presumption of resulting trust, please see our blog of May 15, 2025 by Cara Zacks).
3. Delayed Distribution and Accounting of Estate Assets by Estate Trustee
Q: It is almost two years since the estate trustee obtained probate. The estate trustee has not made final distributions and is not providing any accounting information on the estate. What can I do?
A: An estate trustee can generally distribute the estate assets within a year. However, based on the complexities of the estate, it could take longer.
Once the estate has been administered, the estate trustee should pass their accounts to show that the estate assets are properly managed. This is called a “passing of accounts”. If the estate trustee fails to do so or refuses to provide information on the estate, any of the beneficiaries in the estate can retain a lawyer to make an application to the court to compel the estate trustee to pass accounts or have the estate trustee removed.
Roslyn Blackette
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.
Sep 19, 2025
When I was in my third year of law school, 1L and 2L students constantly asked me two things:
- “Do you have an outline I could use?” and…
- “What courses should I take next year?”
The first one was easy (yes, I do). The second one? Much harder. My advice usually depended on which classes I did well in, or which professors I liked, not necessarily which courses would be the most useful later.
Now, I have come to realize how valuable it is to take courses that actually relate to your future practice. There are the obvious ones (like Wills & Estates or Trusts), and the not so obvious.
With a 2L summer and the first weeks of articling behind me, here are the courses that have been most helpful for my work in estate litigation so far:
1. Civil Procedure
This is where you learn the nuts and bolts of litigation: the differences between a motion and an application, counting days for court deadlines, different avenues to get a case dismissed, all that jazz. This course is most likely mandatory for all law students, but this is just an extra reminder to really pay attention to the content if you want to pursue litigation.
Taking this course is not a guarantee that you’ll become a pro at the Rules of Civil Procedure. In fact, one of my favourite professors told me that he’s been reading the same Rules (or similar iterations of it) for decades, and always finds new things in the same old places.
The takeaway here is that procedure can matter just as much as substance for your case, and a basic understanding of procedure can put you miles ahead.
2. Real Estate Law
Estates often consist of real property, and Estate Lit could involve fighting about that property, who owns it, how much of it, who is entitled to which parts, etc. You may deal with disputes regarding cottages, condos, farmland, family homes, and there are distinct legal considerations for each type of real property.
Learning how to read and decipher an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS), a parcel register and even a Trust Ledger in law school means one less thing to panic-Google when you end up having to do it in the course of your file. This could come up in a myriad of ways, such as checking a property’s ownership or reviewing accounts.
3. Negotiation
Most estate disputes settle, whether in the regular course of the file or at mediation. A negotiation course helps you understand your own client and the opposing party’s interests versus positions. Through practice, this course may also equip you to think outside of the box and prepare creative offers that actually get results.
Learning to identify your client’s BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement) and separating their “must haves” versus the “nice to have” results will help you guide clients toward decisions that are cost effective, efficient, and satisfactory.
4. Tax Law
I took a tax course, and yes it was difficult, but the gain was worth the pain (at least that’s what I’m telling myself to cope with having to suffer through the General Anti-avoidance Rule…).
But in truth, every estate issue has tax implications: there’s the obvious estate administration tax, but there’s also underlying tax consequences to each piece of advice you give clients on their estate problems.
Even a basic understanding of tax law can improve client service as it enables us to spot which tax issues are purely within our expertise, and which require tax lawyers or accountants.
No Singular Course Prepares You
No law school course will prepare you for everything. There’s no class on gathering facts and filling in gaps of information, or parsing through hundreds of pages of medical records just hoping you’ll find something relevant to your argument, but the ones mentioned gave me a solid foundation to try my best at work.
Fara Seddigh
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.
