Overview of the Case
In Raimundo et al v. Andrade et al, 2025 ONSC 6278, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted an application to remove an estate trustee and appoint a successor, while addressing concerns over potential conflicts of interest. This endorsement, issued by Justice J. Di Luca on November 10, 2025, underscores the court’s authority to ensure efficient estate administration when a trustee is unable or unwilling to act. The decision emphasizes practical resolutions in estate disputes to promote finality and protect beneficiaries.
The Facts
Zelia Maria Andrade passed away on May 25, 2024, leaving a will dated October 11, 2018, that named Shannon Durno (the will’s drafter) as estate trustee without an alternate. Ms. Durno initially retained a lawyer to assist with administration but soon faced opposition from beneficiary Fernando Andrade, who filed a notice of objection challenging her appointment and the will’s validity.
Ms. Durno terminated her retainer, sought removal as trustee due to unwillingness to continue, and the applicants (other beneficiaries Evelina Raimundo and Natalia Jesus Monaco) retained the same firm to vacate Fernando’s objection. On June 23, 2025, Justice Speyer vacated the objection and ordered costs against Fernando.
The applicants then sought directions to remove Ms. Durno and appoint Mr. Bolotenko (of ABPC) as successor. All beneficiaries except Fernando consented; Ms. Durno confirmed her unwillingness but took no position on the successor. Fernando opposed, alleging a conflict due to ABPC’s prior involvement and expressing dissatisfaction with the prior ruling, while hinting at an appeal.
The Law
Key legal principles included:
Removal or Passing Over of Estate Trustees
Under the Trustee Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.23 (ss. 5 and 37(1)), courts can remove trustees who are unwilling or unable to act (Evans v. Gonder Estate, 2010 ONCA 172; Pierce v. Zock, 2019 ONSC 4156). If a trustee has “intermeddled” with the estate (e.g., retaining counsel or corresponding with parties), they cannot simply renounce and must be formally removed (Chambers Estate v. Chambers, 2013 ONCA 511).
Appointment of Successor Trustees
Upon removal, courts must appoint a successor to ensure proper administration. Conflicts arise if the trustee’s personal interests conflict with their duties or those of beneficiaries (Sasso v. Sasso, 2021 ONSC 3259). However, no conflict exists if the proposed trustee is impartial, not a beneficiary, and owes equal duties to all.
Analysis
Justice Di Luca determined Ms. Durno had intermeddled (e.g., retaining ABPC and defending the will challenge), necessitating removal rather than passing over. Her unwillingness was clear and final, and the court affirmed it cannot compel an unwilling trustee.
On the successor appointment, the court rejected Fernando’s conflict allegations:
- Mr. Bolotenko had no personal interest as a non-beneficiary.
- No misuse of confidential information, as Fernando was never a client.
- ABPC’s prior representation of the applicants and Ms. Durno did not create an irreconcilable conflict, especially with the applicants’ consent and the other beneficiaries’ support.
- Mr. Bolotenko’s role as trustee (not counsel) focused on impartial administration, with accountability to all.
Fernando’s failure to propose an alternative and his focus on the prior ruling did not sway the court. The decision prioritizes practical estate administration over unsubstantiated concerns.
Costs submissions were invited, with deadlines set post-endorsement.
Lessons Learned
This case offers key takeaways for estate planning and disputes:
- Unwilling Trustees: Courts will readily remove trustees who refuse to act, but early “intermeddling” prevents simple renunciation—plan wills with alternates.
- Conflict Assessments: Alleged conflicts must be substantive; prior counsel involvement isn’t disqualifying if impartiality is maintained and beneficiaries consent.
- Beneficiary Consensus: Majority support for a successor strengthens applications, but courts ensure duties to all, including dissenters.
- Efficient Administration: Ontario courts favor resolutions that avoid delays.
- Appeals and Objections: Dissatisfaction with prior rulings doesn’t halt proceedings; objectors should propose viable alternatives.
For those facing estate trustee issues or will challenges, professional guidance is crucial to navigate these complexities.
Bobila Walker Law is a Toronto-based firm specializing in estate litigation, probate, guardianship disputes, and related areas such as family law, civil litigation, and crypto fraud recovery.
Led by Managing Partner Daniel Walker, the firm assists clients in navigating complex wills, trusts, and contentious family matters to achieve fair outcomes. To discuss your legal needs, contact us at 416-847-1859 or email daniel@bobilawalkerlaw.com.
