The recent decision in Eaman v. Banford[1], 2025 ONSC 4712 illustrates the limits of an applicant’s ability to revisit settled estate litigation and highlights the court’s reluctance to appoint an estate trustee where the appointment would create conflicts of interest or facilitate claims contrary to the estate’s settled administration.

Background

The late Keith Ronald Eaman (“Mr. Eaman”) passed away on July 9, 2021. His Last Will and Testament (the “Will”), executed June 28, 2021, left the entirety of his estate to his second wife, Judi, who predeceased him days after the execution.[2] A Codicil, executed July 8, 2021, appointed Mr. Eaman’s friend and neighbour, Janice Banford (“Ms. Banford”), as estate trustee and sole beneficiary.[3] Mr. Eamon passed away on July 9, 2021, only a day after executing the Codicil.

Mr. Eaman’s daughter, Laura Eaman (“Ms. Eaman”), was estranged from him and not named as a beneficiary. She commenced a will challenge in November 2021, alleging that the Will and Codicil of her late father were invalid due to a lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, suspicious circumstances, and lack of knowledge and approval.[4]

That proceeding was settled in March 2023 by Minutes of Settlement.[5] Ms. Eaman received the entire residue of her father’s estate, while Ms. Banford, the estate trustee, was reimbursed for her legal fees out of the estate. The matter of Mr. Eaman’s testamentary capacity was not addressed in the settlement. Both parties signed mutual releases.

Subsequently, in June 2023, Ms. Eaman commenced a negligence action against her father’s drafting solicitor, Douglas Grenkie (“Mr. Grenkie”), alleging he was negligent in drafting the Will and Codicil.[6] She claimed damages largely reflecting her personal legal costs of approximately $65,000 incurred in the earlier will challenge. That action is scheduled for trial in 2026.[7]

In 2025, Ms. Eaman sought to be appointed as “succeeding estate trustee” of her late father’s estate. This is after Ms. Banford assumed the duties of estate trustee, fully administered the estate and subsequently resigned as estate trustee on July 25, 2023.[8] Ms. Eaman’s stated purpose in seeking her appointment was to pursue the negligence claim against Mr. Grenkie in her capacity as estate trustee.[9]

Issues

The Court considered two main issues[10]:

1. Whether Mr. Grenkie, as defendant in the negligence action, should be granted leave to intervene in the application for Ms. Eaman’s appointment; and
2. Whether Ms. Eaman ought to be appointed estate trustee of her late father’s estate.

Analysis

Intervention

Hackland J. permitted Mr. Grenkie to intervene.[11] Although he had no financial interest in the estate itself, he had a direct interest in whether Ms. Eaman could use the title of estate trustee to pursue claims against him.[12] His potential liability made his participation in the application both necessary and appropriate.

Ms. Eamon could have sought to be appointed as the succeeding Estate Trustee in the existing negligence action, in which Mr. Grenkie already had the right to participate.[13] Instead, she started a new application. This procedural nuance shouldn’t eliminate Mr. Grenkie’s right to participate in a case that affects him.

Appointment as Estate Trustee

The Court refused to appoint Ms. Eaman as estate trustee. Several factors informed this conclusion:

• Conflict of interest: An estate trustee’s duty is to carry out the testator’s wishes. Ms. Eaman sought appointment solely to facilitate a claim against the drafting solicitor, premised on her father’s alleged lack of capacity – an issue left unresolved by the settlement.[14] This was inconsistent with fiduciary obligations and raised an impermissible conflict.
• Finality of settlement: In the 2023 Minutes of Settlement, Ms. Eaman accepted the entire residue of the estate and released the estate from all claims, without recovering her personal legal costs. Reopening those issues through a new application would be an abuse of process.[15]
• No estate loss: The estate itself had not suffered damages from Ms. Eaman’s personal legal costs.[16] Estate funds had already been properly applied to compensate the former estate trustee for her expenses.
• Limitations issues: Section 38(3) of the Trustee Act bars estate claims in tort commenced more than two years after the deceased’s death.[17] Mr. Eaman died in July 2021. In June 2023, Ms. Eaman personally commenced the negligence action. In 2025, she brought this application to be appointed succeeding estate trustee. While limitations issue will be determined in the negligence action, it weighed against granting the relief Ms. Eamon sought.

Given these factors, Hackland J. found it inequitable and contrary to the estate’s interests to permit Ms. Eaman’s appointment.

Decision

The Court dismissed the application, holding that Ms. Eaman could not be appointed as succeeding estate trustee. Costs were reserved to the trial judge presiding over the ongoing negligence action.

Key Takeaways

Eaman v. Banford affirms that courts will guard against the use of an estate trustee appointment as a strategic vehicle for advancing personal claims, as doing so creates an inherent conflict of interest.

Additionally, settlements in estate litigation are to be respected and cannot be revisited through subsequent applications framed as estate administration issues.

This decision reinforces the principle that estate trusteeship is a fiduciary role, not a litigation tactic, and highlights the courts’ insistence on both finality and fairness in estate administration.

—

[1] Eaman v. Banford, 2025 ONSC 4712 [Eaman].

[2] Ibid at para 3.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid at para 4.

[5] Ibid at para 5.

[6] Ibid at para 6.

[7] Ibid at para 7.

[8] Ibid at para 1.

[9] Ibid at para 9.

[10] Ibid at para 11.

[11] Ibid at para 13.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid at para 12.

[14] Ibid at para 15.

[15] Ibid at para 16.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid at para 17.