What 2024 Taught Us About Trust and Estates Litigation in Canada
Authored by: Kim Gale and Jessica Campolucci
As litigation in estates and trusts law continues to evolve, 2024 marked a significant year for Canadian courts. Several appellate decisions pushed the boundaries of existing doctrines while reinforcing core principles that define estate planning, administration and disputes. The legal landscape increasingly demands sharper attention to detail from lawyers and trustees alike, particularly around limitation periods, testamentary capacity, fiduciary obligations and procedural fairness. This article provides a practical overview of five pivotal cases that shaped Canadian estate and trusts law in 2024, outlining their implications for practitioners, beneficiaries and fiduciaries alike. These decisions emphasize the importance of timely action, the role of intention and documentation in gift transfers, the boundaries of judicial discretion, and how courts are navigating complex family and caregiving relationships.
1. Limitation periods clarified: Ingram v. Kulynych Estate, 2024 ONCA 678
One of the most significant rulings of the year, Ingram v. Kulynych Estate directly addressed which limitation period governs equitable claims against an estate — specifically constructive trust and unjust enrichment claims. The appellant, Kathleen Ingram, claimed a share of her deceased partner’s estate, arguing that she had supported him emotionally and financially for 18 years. The estate trustee countered that her claim was time-barred under the Trustee Act, which imposes a two-year limit from the date of death. The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected arguments favouring the longer 10-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act. Instead, it confirmed that even equitable remedies like unjust enrichment fall within the two-year window provided under s. 38 of the Trustee Act. Discoverability
did not apply.
Implications: For estate litigants and lawyers, the takeaway is clear: claims must be filed promptly after death, regardless of whether the claim concerns equitable interests in property. This supports finality in estate administration and narrows the scope for delayed litigation, no matter how convincing the underlying circumstances.
2. Discoverability in will challenges: Shannon v. Hrabovsky Estate, 2024 ONCA 120
The issue of discoverability resurfaced in Shannon v. Hrabovsky, where an adopted daughter, Gayle Shannon, challenged the validity of a 2007 will she believed to be suspicious and executed when the testator lacked capacity. Her challenge was raised years after the testator’s death, but she argued the limitation clock hadn’t started because she didn’t receive a copy of the will until much later. The Court of Appeal agreed. It ruled that the two-year period under the Limitations Act did not begin until Gayle Shannon became aware of the will’s actual content, not merely its existence. This nuanced interpretation protects potential litigants who are excluded from estate planning documents and remain unaware of their legal standing.
Implications: Estate trustees should be prepared to provide full and prompt disclosure of testamentary documents. Suspicions alone won’t trigger the clock — actual knowledge does. For practitioners, this underlines the importance of due diligence in sharing information with potential claimants to avoid future challenges.
3. Modernizing rectification doctrine: Ihnatowych Estate v. Ihnatowych (Litigation guardian of), 2024 ONCA 142
Rectification — the equitable remedy to correct drafting errors in a will — took centre stage in Ihnatowych. The case involved a testator whose will included unintended beneficiaries due to solicitor error. The estate trustee successfully sought rectification to exclude individuals the deceased did not intend to benefit, relying on extrinsic evidence, such as solicitor notes and handwritten instructions. The Court of Appeal affirmed that the established Robinson test governs rectification of wills, not the commercial contract-focused Fairmont Hotels standard. That test permits rectification if the testator’s intentions were clear, and the will, as drafted, failed to reflect them due to solicitor error or misunderstanding.
Implications: This decision highlights the importance of precise drafting and comprehensive records. Estate planners must document client instructions thoroughly. For litigators, strong evidence is crucial when seeking to align testamentary documents with a testator’s true intent.
4. Resulting trusts, gifts and caregiver dynamics: Waters Estate v. Henry, 2024 ONSC 4190
Waters Estate v. Henry examined whether millions of dollars given to a caregiver-turned-romantic partner were legitimate gifts or held in trust. The deceased transferred over $30 million to his caregiver over a decade, sparking litigation upon his death — especially after it was evident that some of the funds came from his wife’s assets, which he held power of attorney for. While the court upheld most of the transfers as valid gifts due to evidence of donative intent, it found that the misuse of his wife’s funds constituted a breach of fiduciary duty. The estate recovered $2.85 million on her behalf. The doctrine of resulting trust was applied to real property holdings, giving the estate an 80 per cent interest based on the presumption that the deceased had not intended to make a full gift.
Implications: This case reinforces the need for clear documentation when transferring assets, especially in relationships involving caregivers or power imbalances. Attorneys acting under power of attorney must strictly avoid conflicts of interest. The ruling also provides clarity on how courts approach the gift vs. trust distinction in complex factual matrices.
5. Disclosure and privilege boundaries: Barbieri v. White, 2024 BCCA 225
Although from British Columbia, the principles discussed in Barbieri v. White resonate nationwide. The court examined whether an estate trustee who disclosed legal invoices during routine accounting to a former co-trustee waived solicitor-client privilege. The Court of Appeal ruled that privilege had been waived — but only partially. The trustee was allowed to redact specific legal advice from the invoices.
Implications: Estate trustees must tread carefully when disclosing financial documents to beneficiaries. Even inadvertent disclosures over time can constitute a waiver of privilege. Trustees should consult counsel before sharing documents, and when in doubt, redact privileged
communications to avoid compromising their legal position.
Looking ahead
If 2024 was a guide, the trajectory of estate litigation in Canada could be pushing toward stricter timelines, more nuanced assessments of capacity and intent, and reinforced standards of fiduciary care. The courts have continued to honour testamentary freedom and equitable fairness — but within the bounds of established statutory limits.
Practitioners should take note of these shifts and adapt accordingly: by preserving records, providing timely disclosure and counselling clients on the risks of delay and ambiguity. Trusts and estates litigation remains as personal as it is legal, and in 2024, the courts have made it clear that precision, professionalism and prompt action are paramount.
This article was originally published by Law360 Canada, part of LexisNexisCanada Inc.