Striking Objections in Contentious Estates: Paju v. Lindstrom, 2025 ONSC 785
Introduction
In Paju v. Lindstrom[1], 2025 ONSC 785, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed a motion to strike documents filed by a beneficiary as objections to an estate trustee’s accounts. The decision demonstrates the court’s willingness to enforce compliance with prior endorsements, strike improper objections, and prevent abusive litigation tactics from delaying the administration of estates.
Background
The litigation arose out of the estate of Oiva Paju (the “deceased”). The estate trustee, Chris Paju (“Mr. Paju”), was opposed by his sister, Jennifer Lindstrom (“Ms. Lindstrom”), who filed objections to both the first and second sets of estate accounts. A third sibling, Susan Foulds, was also a residual beneficiary but did not play an active role in the dispute.
Ms. Lindstrom had separately commenced an action in March 2022 claiming that two handwritten notes constituted codicils to the deceased’s will.[2] That claim was rejected by Regional Senior Justice Newton (“RSJ Newton”) in December 2023 following a trial of an issue, with costs of $67,214 ordered against Ms. Lindstrom on a substantial indemnity basis for vexatious conduct.[3]
During this proceeding in May 2022, Mr. Paju commenced an Application to Pass Accounts for as estate trustee from the Deceased’s date of death to March 15, 2022 (the “First Accounts”).[4] Most of the estate had already been administered by this time, and the estate was nearing final distribution. Ms. Lindstrom filed a Notice of Objection to the First Accounts.[5]
Because of delays caused by Ms. Lindstrom’s trial, a second passing of accounts was necessary for the period from March 16, 2022, to January 10, 2024 (the “Second Accounts”).[6] The Second Accounts primarily consisted of legal fees, accounting fees, taxes, and executor reimbursements.
When Ms. Lindstrom filed multiple objection pleadings that included threats, re-litigation of previously determined issues, and references to the already-decided codicil dispute, the estate trustee brought a motion under Rules 25.11 and 60.12 to strike the non-compliant material.[7]
The Motion to Strike
Mr. Paju argued that Ms. Lindstrom’s objections:[8]
- Violated prior court orders, including RSJ Newton’s clear direction in August 2024 that she file a single, line-by-line chart of objections;
- Relitigated issues relating to the purported codicils, already resolved against her;
- Repeated objections already made to the first accounts; and
- Contained threats and scandalous allegations against the trustee and counsel.
Mr. Paju emphasized that the second accounts covered a relatively quiet 21-month period, with little activity beyond professional fees, and that Ms. Lindstrom’s voluminous filings only served to frustrate and delay finalization of the estate.[9]
Ms. Lindstrom did not make substantive submissions in response.[10]
The Court’s Analysis
The Court found that RSJ Newton’s August 22, 2024 endorsement was “clear and unambiguous”: Ms. Lindstrom was required to serve one comprehensive notice of objection in chart form. Her delivery of multiple overlapping and non-responsive documents violated that order. [11]
Two documents entitled “Mr. Jonathon Clark Fees and Respondent Requests for Fines and Compensation” and “Executor Fees and Respondent Requests for Fines and Compensation” were struck in their entirety.[12] The judge held that they were not responsive to the Second Account and plainly breached RSJ Newton’s August 22 endorsement.
The 36-page notice of objection was reviewed in detail. Large portions were found to be improper because they:[13]
- Raised issues already addressed in the first accounts;
- Related to the codicil litigation and associated costs orders; or
- Contained implied threats and accusations of misappropriation.
—
[1] Paju v. Lindstrom et al, 2025 ONSC 785.
[2] Ibid at para 3.
[3] Ibid at paras 8-9.
[4] Ibid at para 4.
[5] Ibid at para 5.
[6] Ibid at para 11.
[7] Ibid at para 23.
[8] Ibid at paras 19-20.
[9] Ibid at para 21.
[10] Ibid at para 27.
[11] Ibid at para 28.
[12] Ibid at para 29.
[13] Ibid at paras 32-40.
Menu
Written by: Emily Caza
Posted on: October 17, 2025
Categories: Commentary
Introduction
In Paju v. Lindstrom[1], 2025 ONSC 785, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed a motion to strike documents filed by a beneficiary as objections to an estate trustee’s accounts. The decision demonstrates the court’s willingness to enforce compliance with prior endorsements, strike improper objections, and prevent abusive litigation tactics from delaying the administration of estates.
Background
The litigation arose out of the estate of Oiva Paju (the “deceased”). The estate trustee, Chris Paju (“Mr. Paju”), was opposed by his sister, Jennifer Lindstrom (“Ms. Lindstrom”), who filed objections to both the first and second sets of estate accounts. A third sibling, Susan Foulds, was also a residual beneficiary but did not play an active role in the dispute.
Ms. Lindstrom had separately commenced an action in March 2022 claiming that two handwritten notes constituted codicils to the deceased’s will.[2] That claim was rejected by Regional Senior Justice Newton (“RSJ Newton”) in December 2023 following a trial of an issue, with costs of $67,214 ordered against Ms. Lindstrom on a substantial indemnity basis for vexatious conduct.[3]
During this proceeding in May 2022, Mr. Paju commenced an Application to Pass Accounts for as estate trustee from the Deceased’s date of death to March 15, 2022 (the “First Accounts”).[4] Most of the estate had already been administered by this time, and the estate was nearing final distribution. Ms. Lindstrom filed a Notice of Objection to the First Accounts.[5]
Because of delays caused by Ms. Lindstrom’s trial, a second passing of accounts was necessary for the period from March 16, 2022, to January 10, 2024 (the “Second Accounts”).[6] The Second Accounts primarily consisted of legal fees, accounting fees, taxes, and executor reimbursements.
When Ms. Lindstrom filed multiple objection pleadings that included threats, re-litigation of previously determined issues, and references to the already-decided codicil dispute, the estate trustee brought a motion under Rules 25.11 and 60.12 to strike the non-compliant material.[7]
The Motion to Strike
Mr. Paju argued that Ms. Lindstrom’s objections:[8]
Mr. Paju emphasized that the second accounts covered a relatively quiet 21-month period, with little activity beyond professional fees, and that Ms. Lindstrom’s voluminous filings only served to frustrate and delay finalization of the estate.[9]
Ms. Lindstrom did not make substantive submissions in response.[10]
The Court’s Analysis
The Court found that RSJ Newton’s August 22, 2024 endorsement was “clear and unambiguous”: Ms. Lindstrom was required to serve one comprehensive notice of objection in chart form. Her delivery of multiple overlapping and non-responsive documents violated that order. [11]
Two documents entitled “Mr. Jonathon Clark Fees and Respondent Requests for Fines and Compensation” and “Executor Fees and Respondent Requests for Fines and Compensation” were struck in their entirety.[12] The judge held that they were not responsive to the Second Account and plainly breached RSJ Newton’s August 22 endorsement.
The 36-page notice of objection was reviewed in detail. Large portions were found to be improper because they:[13]
—
[1] Paju v. Lindstrom et al, 2025 ONSC 785.
[2] Ibid at para 3.
[3] Ibid at paras 8-9.
[4] Ibid at para 4.
[5] Ibid at para 5.
[6] Ibid at para 11.
[7] Ibid at para 23.
[8] Ibid at paras 19-20.
[9] Ibid at para 21.
[10] Ibid at para 27.
[11] Ibid at para 28.
[12] Ibid at para 29.
[13] Ibid at paras 32-40.
Author
View all posts