Case Review: Hockney v. Kneeland
Hockney v. Kneeland, 2025 ONSC 1309
Background
The case of Hockney v. Kneeland involves a dispute over the administration of the estate of Mary Jane Hockney, who passed away on December 23, 2014. Mary Jane Hockney had appointed her lawyer, Mary Kneeland (“Ms. Kneeland” or “Lawyer Kneeland”), as the sole estate trustee through a codicil to her Will dated April 16, 2012. The estate was to be divided equally among her seven grandchildren, most of whom were minors at the time of her death. The estate’s assets consisted of approximately $255,000 in cash or cash equivalents, with minimal liabilities at the time of her passing.[1]
Issues
The primary issue in this case concerned the prolonged delay in the distribution of the estate’s assets to the beneficiaries. Despite being appointed as the sole estate trustee, Ms. Kneeland has failed to distribute the remaining $150,000 held in trust for the beneficiaries for over a decade. The beneficiaries have made multiple attempts to resolve the issue, including complaints to the Law Society of Ontario, which resulted in a caution to Ms. Kneeland regarding communication, delay, and practice management. However, no substantial progress has been made in the distribution of the estate.[2]
Application
In September 2024, the applicants, who are the beneficiaries of the estate, commenced legal proceedings to compel Ms. Kneeland to account for and complete the administration of the estate. Despite multiple attempts to serve Ms. Kneeland, she has evaded service. For instance, the process servers left their business cards at Ms. Kneeland’s door and were called twice by someone with the called ID of Paul Kneeland and were asked to leave the materials inside her screen/storm door. Counsel for the applicants also sent materials and details about the hearing by email to the two email accounts that Ms. Kneeland used to communicate with the beneficiaries. The court validated service of the application record and deemed further service to the same email addresses as good service in this application.[3]
Decision
Justice Myers ordered Ms. Kneeland to pass her accounts as the estate trustee by commencing a proper application by April 30, 2025. The court emphasized that this order does not authorize any further delay in fulfilling her duties to the beneficiaries and the estate. Additionally, Ms. Kneeland is required to deliver a Notice of Appearance by March 7, 2025, if she intends to participate in the proceedings. Failure to do so will allow the applicants to proceed with a default judgment.[4]
Concluding Comments
The court’s decision underscores the importance of accountability and transparency in the administration of estates, particularly when a lawyer is entrusted with fiduciary responsibilities. The beneficiaries’ prolonged wait for the distribution of their inheritance highlights the need for effective oversight and enforcement of professional standards in estate administration.
—
[1] Hockney v. Kneeland, 2025 ONSC 1309 (CanLII), at para 1 – 7
[2] Hockney v. Kneeland, 2025 ONSC 1309 (CanLII), at para 13 – 15
[3] Hockney v. Kneeland, 2025 ONSC 1309 (CanLII), at para 24 – 26
[4] Hockney v. Kneeland, 2025 ONSC 1309 (CanLII), at para 18-23
Menu
Written by: Chhavi Monga
Posted on: March 17, 2025
Categories: Commentary, WEL Newsletter
Hockney v. Kneeland, 2025 ONSC 1309
Background
The case of Hockney v. Kneeland involves a dispute over the administration of the estate of Mary Jane Hockney, who passed away on December 23, 2014. Mary Jane Hockney had appointed her lawyer, Mary Kneeland (“Ms. Kneeland” or “Lawyer Kneeland”), as the sole estate trustee through a codicil to her Will dated April 16, 2012. The estate was to be divided equally among her seven grandchildren, most of whom were minors at the time of her death. The estate’s assets consisted of approximately $255,000 in cash or cash equivalents, with minimal liabilities at the time of her passing.[1]
Issues
The primary issue in this case concerned the prolonged delay in the distribution of the estate’s assets to the beneficiaries. Despite being appointed as the sole estate trustee, Ms. Kneeland has failed to distribute the remaining $150,000 held in trust for the beneficiaries for over a decade. The beneficiaries have made multiple attempts to resolve the issue, including complaints to the Law Society of Ontario, which resulted in a caution to Ms. Kneeland regarding communication, delay, and practice management. However, no substantial progress has been made in the distribution of the estate.[2]
Application
In September 2024, the applicants, who are the beneficiaries of the estate, commenced legal proceedings to compel Ms. Kneeland to account for and complete the administration of the estate. Despite multiple attempts to serve Ms. Kneeland, she has evaded service. For instance, the process servers left their business cards at Ms. Kneeland’s door and were called twice by someone with the called ID of Paul Kneeland and were asked to leave the materials inside her screen/storm door. Counsel for the applicants also sent materials and details about the hearing by email to the two email accounts that Ms. Kneeland used to communicate with the beneficiaries. The court validated service of the application record and deemed further service to the same email addresses as good service in this application.[3]
Decision
Justice Myers ordered Ms. Kneeland to pass her accounts as the estate trustee by commencing a proper application by April 30, 2025. The court emphasized that this order does not authorize any further delay in fulfilling her duties to the beneficiaries and the estate. Additionally, Ms. Kneeland is required to deliver a Notice of Appearance by March 7, 2025, if she intends to participate in the proceedings. Failure to do so will allow the applicants to proceed with a default judgment.[4]
Concluding Comments
The court’s decision underscores the importance of accountability and transparency in the administration of estates, particularly when a lawyer is entrusted with fiduciary responsibilities. The beneficiaries’ prolonged wait for the distribution of their inheritance highlights the need for effective oversight and enforcement of professional standards in estate administration.
—
[1] Hockney v. Kneeland, 2025 ONSC 1309 (CanLII), at para 1 – 7
[2] Hockney v. Kneeland, 2025 ONSC 1309 (CanLII), at para 13 – 15
[3] Hockney v. Kneeland, 2025 ONSC 1309 (CanLII), at para 24 – 26
[4] Hockney v. Kneeland, 2025 ONSC 1309 (CanLII), at para 18-23
Author
View all posts