Partial Justice, Fully Upheld: Trustee Removal in MacBeth

In a recent case titled MacBeth Estate v. MacBeth, 2025 ONCA 360, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a motion judge’s decision that removed two former estate trustees and ordered them to personally pay $21,000 in costs. This case is significant for three reasons: it highlights the discretionary nature of both adjournment requests and trustee removals, it illustrates how partial summary judgments, while rare, can be appropriate in certain estate litigation contexts, and it provides a practical example of how courts apply stringent tests for both trustee removal and procedural fairness.

This decision comes at a particularly interesting time when Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure undergo substantial reform, including the revocation of Rule 49.14 on partial settlement agreements and broader proposed changes that could reshape civil litigation practice by 2026.

The Case at a Glance

The appellants, Robert and Catherine Hurst, were trustees of the estate of Ruth MacBeth (the “Deceased”), with the testator’s son, John MacBeth (“John”) as the sole beneficiary. John brought a motion to remove the estate trustees alleging that the appellants failed to inform him of their plans to sell the family cottage, made it challenging for him to retrieve his possessions before the sale, and chose to transfer the cottage to a third party rather than to him as part of the estate, triggering hefty, unnecessary capital gains taxes.

The appellants appealed the motion judge’s order removing them as trustees and replacing them with John. On appeal, they argued that the motion judge had made three key errors:

1. Denying their request for an adjournment.
2. Removing them as estate trustees.
3. Fixing a holdback amount from the estate without hearing full submissions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on all grounds, reaffirming key principles that will guide future estate litigation.

Adjournment Requests: Discretion Within Limits

The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that whether to grant or deny an adjournment is “quintessentially an exercise of judicial discretion.” In this case, the motion judge considered relevant factors, including one appellant’s claim that a recent cancer diagnosis limited his ability to prepare for the hearing. However, the judge found insufficient evidence to support that a delay was warranted and considered the prejudice that a further adjournment would cause the respondent. The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with this call and cited the need to avoid delays and ensure fairness to all parties.

Practical Takeaway: medical issues alone are insufficient to guarantee adjournments. Courts require concrete evidence of how health conditions materially affect a party’s ability to participate and will balance this against fairness to opposing parties and the sufficient administration of justice.

Removal of Estate Trustees

This decision also provides guidance on the stringent test required for removing estate trustees. The test, as reiterated by the motion judge, is whether there is clear and strong evidence that the trustee’s continued involvement would put the proper administration of the estate at risk. In this case, the judge found significant evidence that the appellants had engaged in conduct that would likely prejudice the interests of the beneficiaries, and therefore their removal as estate trustee was justified.

The judge found significant evidence that the appellants had engaged in conduct likely to prejudice the beneficiaries’ interests, including:

1. Failing to properly communicate about major estate decisions.
2. Making the cottage sale process unnecessarily difficult for the beneficiary.
3. Choosing a sale approach that resulted in substantial, avoidable tax consequences.

The Court emphasized that the welfare of the beneficiaries remains the court’s primary concern, and when that interest is in jeopardy, judicial intervention is warranted even before a full trial.

Key Insight: Trustee removal is particularly serious when family members are involved, but courts will not hesitate to act when beneficiaries’ interests are clearly at risk. Trustees have a duty not just to preserve estate assets, but to administer them in the beneficiaries’ best interests and maintain appropriate communication throughout the process.

Partial Summary Judgment

The most notable part of this decision is the way in which the Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge’s decision to grant partial summary judgment. This is especially significant in light of the Court’s warning against such a decision. In Butera v. Chown, Cairns LLP, 2017 ONCA 783, the Court cautioned against the overuse of partial summary judgment, making it clear that it can lead to duplicative proceedings or inconsistent findings, and that they can make the litigation very expensive. The Court emphasized that partial summary judgment should only be used when the issue is discrete and severable from the main action, there is no risk of inconsistent findings, and the motion will promote efficiency and save costs.

MacBeth satisfied the stringent Butera criteria. The motion judge was able to adjudicate the discrete issues of trustee removal and costs without touching on the claims in the broader estate litigation. There was no need for credibility assessments, and the facts related to the appellants’ conduct were well-documented. In addition, there was no risk of the partial judgment creating potential conflicts with any future trial decisions. As a result, the partial summary judgment advanced the fair and just resolution of the proceeding.

Strategic Lesson: Partial summary judgment remains viable, but only when the issues are truly self-contained and can be resolved without creating procedural complications or factual conflicts with remaining claims.

Costs Implications

The $21,000 personal costs award against the removed trustees represents a departure from traditional estate litigation cost principles. Traditionally, estate litigation costs are paid by the estate when there are reasonable grounds to question a will’s execution, interpretation, or the testator’s capacity. Here, the personal costs award likely reflects the Court’s view that the trustees’ conduct fell below acceptable standards.

Practical Implication: Estate trustees cannot assume estate protection for costs when their conduct is found to be improper or harmful to beneficiaries’ interests.

Timing and Broader Procedural Reform Context

This case arrives during a period of significant procedural reform in Ontario.

Rule 49.14

As of June 16, 2025, Rule 49.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs partial settlement agreements, will be revoked and replaced by provisions under revised Rule 9, pursuant to O. Reg. 50/25, s. 9. The new Rule 9 is intended to streamline and simplify the procedural treatment of partial agreements and withdrawals, reinforcing the Courts’ broader interest in efficiency and proportionality.

Even though MacBeth did not directly apply Rule 49.14, the case fits into broader conversations about how courts handle only part of a case at a time, whether that be through a settlement or a partial judgment.

Key Takeaways for Estate Trustees and Estate Litigators

In the ever-evolving landscape of estate law, both estate trustees and litigators must remain vigilant, informed, and responsive to changing expectations from courts and beneficiaries. Recent developments underscore the importance of diligence, transparency, and procedural awareness in all aspects of estate administration and litigation.

For Estate Trustees

Effective estate administration hinges on strong communication and responsible decision-making. Estate trustees are reminded that:

1. Transparent and timely communication with beneficiaries is essential, particularly when making major decisions that affect their interests. Keeping beneficiaries informed fosters trust and minimizes the risk of misunderstandings or disputes.
2. Trustees must always act in the best interests of the beneficiaries, including carefully considering the tax implications and other potential consequences of their decisions.
3. It is equally important to document the rationale behind key decisions. This record not only supports the trustee’s judgment but also serves as protection if actions are later challenged.
4. Trustees should be mindful of the risk of personal cost liability. Courts may impose costs against a trustee personally for improper conduct, not just in cases of removal, but where the administration causes undue prejudice or is found lacking in care or fairness.

For Estate Litigators

From a litigation perspective, courts continue to signal both flexibility and firmness in how procedural tools and standards are applied:

1. Partial summary judgment remains available but is only granted in clearly severable and discrete matters that meet the stringent criteria outlined in Butera. Litigators should assess whether an issue is truly appropriate for partial adjudication.
2. Medical adjournments must be substantiated with clear and credible evidence. Courts are increasingly requiring detailed documentation to justify any delay on medical grounds and will assess whether the condition materially affects a party’s ability to participate in the proceeding.
3. Trustee removal applications face a high bar, but success is achievable where there is compelling, specific evidence of conduct that compromises or prejudices the interests of the beneficiaries.
4. Procedural fairness continues to be a key focus, with appellate courts scrutinizing whether trial judges exercised discretion appropriately and considered all relevant factors in their decisions.

Conclusion

MacBeth Estate v. MacBeth demonstrates that while courts maintain high standards for both trustee removal and partial summary judgment, these remedies remain available when properly applied. The decision reinforces that estate trustees are not immune from scrutiny or personal consequences when their conduct falls short of required standards.

Estate Litigation Assistance

If you are looking for assistance with an Estate Litigation matter in Ottawa, Perth or anywhere in Ontario, please don’t hesitate to reach out our team at estatelitigation@mannlawyers.com.

This blog post was written by Carly Baldachin, Summer Student, and  Elena Mamay, a member of the Commercial Litigation and Estate Litigation teams.  Elena can be reached at 613-369-0365 or at elena.mamay@mannlawyers.com.