Certificates of Appointments of Estate Trustee, or probate, as it is often referred to, is the process which confirms the ability of an estate trustee to administer an estate. Notably, the authority of an estate trustee derives from the deceased’s last will and testament; however, as many well know, the granting of a Certificate of Appointment or probate means that the estate trustee can go out into the world and ascertain, collect, manage, and distribute the assets of an estate. Financial institutions or parties involved in the purchase of real property, for example, require an individual to demonstrate their official or formalized authority to act on behalf of an estate before engaging in certain transactions.
A recent case out of Alberta reaffirms these principles, and serves as a warning to large tech companies to not try to play by their own rules. In 2026 ABKB 309 (CanLII), an estate trustee endeavoured to obtained access to the deceased’s Apple account. Such accounts often contain information relevant to a deceased’s persons assets and liabilities, among other things. In this case, the issuance of a Grant of Administration (i.e. a Certificate of Appointment or probate here in Ontario) was insufficient for Apple. In other words, Apple would not provide the estate trustee with access to the deceased’s Apple account and asserted that it required a further court order.
In its decision, the court clarified that a Grant of Administration is in fact a court order which provides estate trustees to have full legal authority over the deceased’s assets, including digital assets. The court held, “The Grants of Administration and Probate that result from this process are Court Orders that are intended to facilitate the activities that administrators and executors must undertake on behalf of estates. Allowing third parties to demand redundant Court Orders that must be sought by administrators and executors in open Court before dealing with administrators or executors undermines the efficiencies that have been gained through the electronic processing of estate applications and imposes the costs of needless applications on estates.”
Justice Feasby further commented that “…refusals by large technology companies to deal with personal representatives of estates without a specific court order places unnecessary and unjustified burdens on estates and the Court.” The court also noted that any such refusal by these companies may result in cost consequences in the future.
There do not yet appear to be reported cases in Ontario which have specifically dealt with this issue, but in all likelihood, that will change soon. In the meantime, Ontario courts may well look to out-of-province jurisprudence to determine how to deal with a company that demands a (duplicative) court order before providing an estate trustee the ability to manage (digital) assets. The practical approach undertaken by the Alberta court would likely be well-received by Ontario estate trustees and beneficiaries alike.
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR BLOG FOR THE LATEST FROM DE VRIES
