In matters and disputes involving estates, there are rules in the Rules of Civil Procedure which refer to persons who appear to have a “financial interest” in an estate. The description of a “financial interest” in an estate limits who may take certain steps in an estate dispute. One example is persons who may apply for directions as to the procedure for bringing any matter before the court, as provided in rule 75.06. Another example is who may object to the issuance of a certificate of appointment of estate trustee (“CAET”), also referred to as ‘probate’, under rule 75.03. Persons who have a “financial interest” in an estate can object to the validity of a last will and testament and can prevent the named estate trustee from obtaining a CAET.
Who then has a “financial interest” in an estate? This was the issue before the court in Campbell Estate v. Kipfer, 2025 ONSC 426 (CanLII) (“Campbell Estate”). In Campbell Estate, the court considered whether a person who intends to make a claim against an estate for unjust enrichment, arising out of services rendered to the deceased, has standing to file a notice of objection and seek removal of the estate trustee named in the will. The deceased was in a relationship with the respondent for 6 years prior to his death. However, upon his death he left a will made approximately 30 years prior which appointed his separated spouse as estate trustee and sole beneficiary of his estate. The respondent filed a notice of objection to the issuance of a CAET in which she claimed that the separated spouse was in a conflict of interest in acting as estate trustee and a beneficiary. The respondent claimed that because she was going to commence an unjust enrichment and constructive trust claim, the separated spouse may receive less of the estate and therefore could not act objectively as estate trustee.
The separated spouse brought an application under rule 75.03(2) seeking to remove the notice of objection. The separated spouse argued that the respondent had no standing to file a notice of objection and filed it for an improper reason. The respondent claimed she appeared to have a “financial interest” in the estate within the meaning of rule 75.03(1). In reviewing the relevant case law, the application judge disagreed. The application judge noted that in HSBC Bank Canada v. Capponi Estate, 2007 CarswellOn 5822 (SCJ) (“Capponi Estate”), HSBC Bank was a creditor of the deceased. HSBC Bank attempted to rely upon rules 74 and 75 to remove the estate trustee. The application judge in Capponi Estate held that rules 74 and 75 are not intended to be used by creditors to secure recovery of assets within the estate. Similar case law was reviewed by the application judge in Campbell Estate, in distinguishing between: (i) persons named in a will, prior wills of a deceased, or who may be intestate beneficiaries; and (ii) persons who are or may be creditors of an estate, or have separate claims against the deceased, such as for constructive trust and quantum meruit.
In Campbell Estate, the application judge held that the respondent’s constructive trust claim does not give her standing to challenge the will nor to challenge the appointment of the separated spouse as estate trustee. The court noted that the respondent had “nothing to gain” by challenging the will, since she would not be a beneficiary on an intestacy and was not a beneficiary of a prior will. The court held that the respondent was not a person who appeared to have a “financial interest” in the estate and ordered the removal of the notice of objection. The respondent is not without remedies against the estate, just not under rules 74 and 75.
