The court in Zuccarini et al. v. Zuccarini et al, 2025 ONSC 5480  (“Zuccarini”) granted the Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of a litigation administrator of the Estate of Landino Zuccarini (the “Estate”).[1]

What is a Litigation Administrator?

In Ontario, a litigation administrator is a person appointed by the court to represent the estate of a deceased person in legal proceedings where there is no executor or administrator in place. This appointment ensures that the estate can commence or defend litigation, maintaining its interests until a formal estate trustee is appointed, or the litigation is resolved.[2]

Background

Landino Zuccarini (the “Deceased”) predeceased his wife, Domenica Zuccarini (“Domenica”) and their four children, Anthony, Dores, Dino and Giovanni. During his lifetime, the Deceased was the director of Pretoria CO. LTD (“Pretoria”) and Hollington CO. LTD (“Hollington”).[3]

The Wills

In January 2019, the Deceased executed a Last Will and Testament (the “2019 Will”), which appointed Anthony as the estate trustee. The 2019 Will provided that the entirety of the Estate was to go to Domenica, with the residue to go to Anthony. Domenica’s Last Will and Testament was a mirror will of the Deceased’s 2019 Will. The Plaintiffs claim that the 2019 Will was a marked departure from the Deceased’s intention of distributing his assets equally amongst all his children.[4]

In 2020, litigation commenced by Dores, Dino and Giovanni (the “Plaintiffs”) who alleged that Anthony unduly influenced the Deceased in the execution of the 2019 Will. Additionally, the Plaintiffs alleged that Anthony had actively and historically unduly influenced Domenica. The defendants were Anthony, Domenica, the Estate, Pretoria, and Hollington (collectively the “Defendants”).[5]

The Motion

The Plaintiffs brought a motion for various forms of relief; however, this case overview focuses on the two main issues, which were as follows:[6]

1. The Appointment of a lawyer to act as the litigation administrator for the Estate; and
2. The litigation administrator to be paid by Domenica and Anthony

Domenica and Anthony opposed the appointment of a litigation administrator and sought the court’s permission to proceed without one. They relied on Rule 10.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, prompting the court to state the following:

[10] Rule 10.02 of the Rules provides that the court may order that the proceeding continue in the absence of a person representing the estate of the deceased person or may by order appoint a person to represent the estate for the purposes of the proceeding, and an order in the proceeding binds the estate of the deceased person, subject to r. 10.03 of the Rules, as if the executor or administrator of the estate of that person had been a party to the proceeding.

Analysis

The court asserted that it was necessary to appoint a litigation administrator for several key reasons.[7]

One reason was that the proceeding was highly litigious, and without representation, the Estate would be prejudiced. The court said this:

[16] Second, this case is highly litigious. Clearly, there is no cooperation between the parties. Hostilities and lack of communication are prevalent. This proceeding has been ongoing for five years without any significant movement. The Estate has an interest in this litigation because there is a dispute as to the current and past assets of the Estate. Without a neutral representative, it is likely that the Estate will be prejudiced.[8]

Another reason the court determined that the Estate required a litigation administrator was that the Estate was an “active party” in the proceedings, having served a counterclaim.[9] The court found that the Estate would be required to defend and advance the counterclaim.

Lastly, the court noted that the Estate had not yet quantified its total value, and on this basis, a litigation administrator was required. Additionally, other questions remained unanswered, such as the share structure of Pretoria and Hollington.

Costs

The Plaintiffs argued that the cost of the litigation administrator should be paid by Anthony and Domenica. The court disagreed, finding that it would be unfair for them to bear the costs based on an unproven presumption that they misappropriated estate funds. [10]

The court determined that the Estate should be the payor of the litigation administrator’s fees. In the event that the Estate was found as “impecunious” as alleged, then Pretoria and Hollington would be liable for the costs of the litigation administrator.

Concluding comments

Zuccarini highlights the court’s powers in appointing a litigation administrator to prevent prejudice against the Estate and ensure fair proceedings.

—

[1] Zuccarini v. Zuccarini, 2025 ONSC 1042 [“Zuccarini]

[2] Kimberly A Whaley, Bryan Gilmartin and Olivier O’Brien, Rules of Civil Procedure Chapters, Parties and Joinder, Rule 9 – Estates and Trusts in Civil Procedure and Practice in Ontario, Noel Semple (ed.), Canadian Legal Information Institute, 2nd ed, 2022 CanLIIDocs 989, <https://canlii.ca/t/7hzwt>, retrieved on 2025-10-03

[3][3] Zuccarini at para 2

[4] Ibid at para 2

[5] Ibid at para 2

[6] Ibid at para 10

[7] Ibid at para 13

[8] Ibid at para 16

[9] Ibid at para 16

[10] Ibid at para 28