Overview

In Chieffallo v Blair, the Ontario Superior Court tackled a growing question: once you renounce your appointment as an estate trustee, can you later revoke that decision? The judge confirmed that while the court does have authority to allow retraction, the decision remains in its discretion, and courts will scrutinize such applications closely.

The Facts

The deceased’s will appointed her two children, a son and a daughter, as co-estate trustees. Two and a half months after their mother’s death, the son executed a formal renunciation under Rule 74.6 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. That renunciation was served and relied upon. However, shortly thereafter, he changed his mind. He claimed that he had not properly understood the discretionary powers granted to estate trustees in the will and expressed a desire to participate in decisions surrounding the distribution of the residue. The daughter, who had begun administering the estate on her own, sought directions from the court on whether the brother could revoke his renunciation.

Michael Blair argued that his renunciation of his role as estate trustee should be revoked because it was executed without proper understanding or legal advice. He claimed that he was unaware of the contents of his mother Yvonne’s will at the time he signed the renunciation and alleged that he was misled by Elisa about the nature and consequences of the document. In his affidavit, Michael stated that had he been made aware of the discretion afforded to trustees under the will—particularly in distributing the residue of the estate—he never would have renounced. He further asserted that he was not given a meaningful opportunity to seek legal counsel and that the renunciation was signed quickly, without informed consent.

Michael also raised the doctrine of intermeddling, arguing that he had already begun administering the estate before executing the renunciation. He relied on his withdrawal of funds from Yvonne’s accounts, their consolidation, and the payment of bills as evidence that he had assumed trustee functions. In his view, these actions rendered his subsequent renunciation invalid without a court order, as renunciation is not permitted once a person has intermeddled in the estate. Michael and his brother Gregory also relied on the MacDonald v. MacIsaac line of reasoning to support the proposition that retraction of a renunciation is possible where the circumstances warrant it, and submitted that the interests of fairness justified allowing him to reassume the trustee role.

In the alternative, Michael sought reinstatement as trustee alongside Elisa to jointly exercise the broad discretion set out in the will, suggesting that both siblings should administer the estate and, where necessary, seek court direction to resolve any disagreements. He further opposed the distribution plan proposed by Elisa and Patrick, arguing that as co-trustees, he and Elisa should first assess how to apply the discretionary powers granted under the will, rather than proceed to an equal distribution without further analysis.

The Law

While Ontario statutes are silent on the question of revoking a renunciation, the court accepted that it has inherent jurisdiction to allow such a retraction in appropriate circumstances. Justice Bell canvassed secondary authorities and noted that similar discretion exists in other jurisdictions. However, he emphasized that discretion is not synonymous with leniency. A renunciation is not a casual or revocable step. It is a deliberate legal act, and once it is filed and relied upon, a high threshold must be met before it can be undone.

Discussion

Justice Bell declined to allow the renunciation to be withdrawn. He found that the brother had adequate time—over two months—to seek legal advice, to review the will, and to consider the implications of his decision. There was no suggestion of duress, mistake, or urgency that would justify second thoughts. The renunciation form was clear and uncomplicated. Although the brother later said he had not fully appreciated the discretionary powers granted to trustees, the court held that his failure to read or understand the will before renouncing was not a justification for reversing course. Importantly, the judge also considered whether the brother had “intermeddled” with the estate—meaning taken substantive steps in administration that could be seen as assuming the trustee role. Here, he had taken limited steps to pay urgent bills and withdraw some funds, but the court found that these acts were consistent with preserving the estate, not managing or distributing it. Therefore, he was not disqualified from renouncing, but he remained bound by it.

Lessons Learned

The court’s reasons in Chieffallo v. Blair serve as a cautionary tale for potential estate trustees. A renunciation, even though procedural in form, carries serious substantive consequences. It is not a placeholder or a trial run. Once submitted and acted upon, a renunciation may foreclose further participation in estate decisions. The court retains the discretion to allow retractions, but such discretion will only be exercised where fairness demands it and no prejudice results. In the absence of a compelling explanation—such as misinformation, coercion, or procedural irregularity—the court will prioritize certainty, reliance, and the orderly administration of the estate.

If you are dealing with an estates dispute, please contact our estates and probate lawyers at 416-847-1859.