Ontario estates research
Estate & Will disputes
A practical index of leading Supreme Court of Canada and Ontario Court of Appeal decisions on will challenges, interpretation, dependant support, trusts and estate administration.
24 decisions with verified CanLII links
Modern cases: 2020–2026Foundational authorities included
Research resource, not legal advice
This is a selected, non-exhaustive collection. Read the full reasons and confirm that each authority remains current before relying on it.
Search the collection
24 decisions shown
All decisionsSupreme CourtOntario Court of Appeal2020–2026Foundational
Browse by issue
Probate & open courtsValidity challengesWill interpretationDependant supportResulting & mutual trustsRectificationEstate trusteesLimitationsFoundational authorities
Research current to September 23, 2026. Modern decisions are limited to reported SCC and ONCA cases released from 2020 through 2026.
Recent decisions
2020–2026
Probate procedure & open courts
Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25
SCCOpen courts2021
Holding: Probate proceedings engage the open court principle. The sealing orders were set aside because the trustees did not establish a serious risk to an important public interest; personal privacy alone did not overcome the strong presumption of openness.
Validity challenges: capacity, undue influence & proof
Leonard v. Zychowicz, 2022 ONCA 212
ONCACapacity2022
Holding: The capacity challenge failed. The application judge could reject expert evidence based on an advocacy-oriented factual summary and prefer the respondent’s evidence; factual and credibility findings attract appellate deference.
Roe v. Roe, 2024 ONCA 179
ONCAUndue influence2024
Holding: Undue influence is a fact-specific inquiry focused on the relationship between the testator and the alleged influencer and on the evidence as a whole. There is no mandatory universal checklist.
McGrath v. Joy, 2022 ONCA 119
ONCAHolograph will2022
Holding: A handwritten note was admitted as the deceased’s will. Drug and alcohol use, without more, did not establish incapacity at the relevant time; the decision also addresses the modern approach to estate-litigation costs.
Schickedanz v. Schickedanz, 2026 ONCA 191
ONCASuspicious circumstances2026
Holding: A handwritten codicil favouring one child with a valuable farm was invalid. The departure from a longstanding equal-division plan, absence of legal advice, beneficiary involvement and cognitive evidence shifted the burden, which the propounder did not meet.
Palichuk v. Palichuk, 2023 ONCA 116
ONCAPre-death challenge2023
Holding: A will cannot be challenged while the testator is alive. Because a will speaks from death and may still be changed or revoked, a pre-death adjudication would be hypothetical and premature.
Johnson v. Johnson, 2022 ONCA 682
ONCAThreshold evidence2022
Holding: The evidentiary threshold for suspicious circumstances is minimal, but the application judge may lightly weigh the competing record. Disappointment and speculation about why a testator omitted a child were insufficient.
Will interpretation
Ross v. Canada Trust Company, 2021 ONCA 161
ONCAArmchair rule2021
Holding: The “armchair rule” is the overarching framework for interpreting a will: the court places itself in the testator’s position and may consider circumstances known to the testator when construing the text.
VanSickle Estate v. VanSickle, 2022 ONCA 643
ONCAWill speaks from death2022
Holding: An option to purchase a farming business had to be interpreted as of the date of death under s. 22 of the Succession Law Reform Act. The court’s role was not to rebalance the estate after changes in value or circumstances.
Jonas v. Jonas, 2022 ONCA 845
ONCAPer stirpes2022
Holding: The court upheld the interpretation of an ambiguous “equal shares per stirpes” clause that best fit the will as a whole and the surrounding circumstances. Interpretation attracts deference absent an extricable legal error.
Dependant support
D.L. v. E.C., 2023 ONCA 494
ONCADependant support2023
Holding: Whether a deceased had a “settled intention” to treat a child as their own under s. 57(1) of the SLRA is fact-specific. A merely basic intention is insufficient, and knowledge of parentage may be considered.
Resulting trusts, mutual wills & secret trusts
Falsetto v. Falsetto, 2023 ONCA 469
ONCAResulting trust2023
Holding: The presumption of resulting trust on a parent’s gratuitous transfers to an adult child was rebutted: the evidence showed gifts. The son’s role as attorney raised fiduciary concerns but did not displace that finding.
Gefen Estate v. Gefen, 2022 ONCA 174
ONCAMutual wills2022
Holding: Mirror wills alone do not establish a mutual-wills arrangement. A mutual-wills agreement or secret trust must be proven with clear, persuasive and cogent evidence, which was absent here.
Rectification
Canada (Attorney General) v. Collins Family Trust, 2022 SCC 26
SCCTrust rectification2022
Holding: Rectification corrects a document that fails to record a prior agreement; it does not rewrite a completed transaction to obtain intended tax results. Scope note: this is a tax/trust case, not a will dispute, but it is a leading modern rectification authority.
Ihnatowych Estate v. Ihnatowych, 2024 ONCA 142
ONCARectification2024
Holding: Rectification was upheld where a drafting error caused the will to depart from the testator’s instructions. The decision confirms Ontario’s established categories for correcting a will that does not carry out those instructions.
Estate trustees: appointment, removal & duties
Re James Estate, 2024 ONCA 623
ONCAAppointment2024
Holding: Disbarment is not an automatic bar to appointment as estate trustee, but appointment is discretionary. The judge could refuse where unresolved conduct concerns risked undermining public confidence in the administration.
Kasanda v. Sartarelli, 2025 ONCA 27
ONCARemoval2025
Holding: Removal was warranted where a co-trustee obstructed core obligations, including payment of estate taxes, making administration impracticable and working against beneficiary welfare.
Limitations
Ingram v. Kulynych Estate, 2024 ONCA 678
ONCALimitation period2024
Holding: The Trustee Act’s strict two-year limitation applied to an unjust-enrichment and constructive-trust claim against an estate. The longer real-property limitation period did not apply.
Foundational authorities
Pre-2020
Leading earlier SCC and ONCA authorities frequently relied on in Ontario estate litigation. These decisions sit outside the 2020–2026 collection but supply much of its doctrinal foundation.
Resulting trusts
Pecore v. Pecore, 2007 SCC 17
SCCResulting trust2007
Holding: Gratuitous transfers from a parent to an adult child carry a presumption of resulting trust, rebuttable by evidence of actual intention. On the evidence, the father intended the daughter to take the joint-account balance by survivorship.
Madsen Estate v. Saylor, 2007 SCC 18
SCCResulting trust2007
Holding: The adult daughter failed to rebut the presumption of resulting trust over joint bank and investment accounts. Unlike Pecore, the evidence did not establish an intention to gift the balance.
Testamentary freedom & public policy
Spence v. BMO Trust Company, 2016 ONCA 196
ONCATestamentary freedom2016
Holding: The clear will stood. Testamentary freedom is deeply entrenched; a competent testator need not provide for an independent adult child, and extrinsic evidence of an alleged discriminatory motive could not be used to invalidate an unambiguous, facially non-discriminatory disposition.
Costs & administration
McDougald Estate v. Gooderham, 2005 CanLII 21091
ONCACosts2005
Holding: The ordinary loser-pays regime applies in estate litigation. Payment from the estate may be justified by public-policy needs to give effect to valid wills or ensure proper estate administration, but is not routine.
Sawdon Estate v. Sawdon, 2014 ONCA 101
ONCABlended costs2014
Holding: A trustee who acted reasonably and for the estate’s benefit was entitled to a blended costs order. The approach can preserve costs discipline while recognizing administration problems caused by a deceased’s unclear intentions.
Neuberger Estate v. York, 2016 ONCA 303
ONCACosts2016
Holding: Costs must be fair and reasonable in light of the parties’ expectations. The analysis is sequential: first ask whether a recognized public-policy consideration applies; if it does, reasonable costs should generally be paid from the estate.
Additional foundational citations
Vout v. Hay, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 876 — burdens of proof and suspicious circumstances.
Hall v. Bennett Estate, (2003), 64 O.R. (3d) 191 — testamentary capacity.
Cummings v. Cummings Estate, (2004), 69 O.R. (3d) 398 — dependant support and moral claims.
Fox v. Fox Estate (Ont. C.A., 1995) — fiduciary discretion and improper discriminatory motive.
Scope: Selected reported decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada and Ontario Court of Appeal. Ontario Superior Court, Divisional Court, other provinces’ courts and SCC leave applications are outside the modern-case collection.
Case summaries are condensed from the judgments and research commentary. Research date: September 23, 2026.