Estate administration can become paralyzed when an appointed trustee refuses to act, especially where beneficiaries are in conflict and no substitute trustee is named in the will. Raimundo et al v. Andrade et al.[1], 2025 ONSC 6278, provides a clear and practical application of the Court’s authority to remove an unwilling estate trustee and appoint a neutral professional replacement, despite the objections of a single beneficiary.
Justice Di Luca’s endorsement addresses two issues:
- Whether the named estate trustee, Shannon Durno, should be removed or passed over; and
- Whether Aleksandr Bolotenko (“Mr. Bolotenko”), a lawyer with estate administration experience, should be appointed as succeeding estate trustee.
Background
Zelia Maria Andrade (the “Deceased”) died on May 25, 2024, leaving a will dated October 11, 2018 (the “Will”), naming Shannon Durno (“Ms. Durno”) – a lawyer who drafted the Will – as her estate trustee. No alternate trustee was provided.[2]
After the death, Ms. Durno retained Aleksandr Bolotenko Professional Corporation (“ABPC”) to assist with administration, engaged in correspondence with beneficiary Fernando Andrade (the “opposing beneficiary”), and defended against his will challenge.[3] Out of caution, Ms. Durno later terminated ABPC and retained LawPRO counsel.[4] Separately, the applicant beneficiaries retained ABPC to vacate Fernando’s notice of objection.[5] That objection was ultimately dismissed by Justice Speyer, with costs against Fernando.[6]
Throughout, Ms. Durno consistently expressed that she did not wish to act as estate trustee.
Most beneficiaries supported appointing Mr. Bolotenko as the successor. The opposing beneficiary objected, raising concerns about conflict, rearguing issues from the will challenge, and indicating dissatisfaction with the result of prior proceedings. [7]
Analysis
1. Removal of the Estate Trustee
Intermeddling and the inability to renounce
Justice Di Luca found that Ms. Durno had taken more than de minimis steps in the administration: retaining counsel, corresponding with beneficiaries, and participating in litigation related to the will.[8] Applying Chambers Estate v. Chambers[9], 2013 ONCA 511, the Court held that she had “intermeddled” and therefore could not simply renounce.
Court’s jurisdiction to remove an unwilling trustee
Justice Di Luca reaffirmed the Court’s authority under Trustee Act, ss. 37(1), 5 and jurisprudence including Evans v. Gonder Estate[10], 2010 ONCA 172 and Pierce v. Zock[11], 2019 ONSC 4156 to remove a trustee who is unwilling or unable to act.[12] The court “cannot force an unwilling estate trustee to act.”[13]
Given Ms. Durno’s unequivocal refusal to act, Justice Di Luca ordered that she be removed.
2. Appointment of a Succeeding Estate Trustee
The need for a replacement
Where a trustee is removed, the Court must appoint a replacement to ensure proper estate administration.[14] All parties, except the opposing beneficiary, supported appointing Mr. Bolotenko, who practices in estates and has experience serving as an estate trustee.[15]
The conflict-of-interest objection
The opposing beneficiary asserted that Bolotenko was conflicted because his firm had previously:
- assisted Ms. Durno briefly at the outset of administration
- represented the applicants in the proceeding to vacate his notice of objection.
The Court carefully analyzed whether any disqualifying conflict existed.
Relying on Sasso v. Sasso[16], 2021 ONSC 3259, Justice Di Luca emphasized that conflict arises where a trustee’s personal interests are at odds with their fiduciary duties.[17] Here:
- Mr. Bolotenko is not a beneficiary[18];
- Mr. Bolotenko cannot misuse confidential information as the opposing beneficiary was never a client of ABPC. There was no risk of Mr. Bolotenko acting against a former client or misusing confidential information [19];
- Mr. Bolotenko is not in a duty of loyalty conflict. Mr. Bolotenko would owe a duty to all the beneficiaries equally. ABPC would also continue to have a duty of loyalty to the firm’s former clients, the applicants. While this could conceivably create challenges, Justice Di Luca was satisfied that there was a negligible risk of conflict here[20]; and
- Mr. Bolotenko will act as estate trustee, not as counsel. His role is to administer the estate to the equal benefit of all beneficiaries[21].
Thus, no personal conflict existed.
Failure of the objecting beneficiary to propose an alternative
All the estate’s beneficiaries – save for one – were comfortable with Mr. Bolotenko’s appointment.[22] Mr. Bolotenko was an experienced estates lawyer, understood his role, and would be accountable to the Court.[23]
Notably, the opposing beneficiary declined to propose any alternative estate trustee, and his objections appeared tied to displeasure with the earlier will-challenge decision.[24]
3. Appointment Granted
Justice Di Luca concluded that “little, if any, risk of conflict in these circumstances” existed.[25] Bolotenko was therefore appointed as succeeding estate trustee.
Final Thoughts
Raimundo reinforces the Court’s pragmatic approach to ensuring estates continue to move forward even in the face of interpersonal conflict, mistrust, or litigation fatigue. It confirms that removal of an unwilling trustee is possible even where intermeddling has occurred, and that allegations of conflict must be grounded in fact, not suspicion.
The decision also highlights the Court’s willingness to appoint professional trustees particularly estate lawyers, where doing so will stabilize administration, protect beneficiaries, and reduce the risk of further litigation.
—
[1] Raimundo et al v. Andrade et al, 2025 ONSC 6278 [Raimundo].
[2] Ibid at para 4.
[3] Ibid at para 5.
[4] Ibid at para 6.
[5] Ibid at para 8.
[6] Ibid at para 9.
[7] Ibid at paras 2-3.
[8] Ibid at paras 12-13.
[9] Chambers Estate v. Chambers, 2013 ONCA 511.
[10] Evans v. Gonder Estate, 2010 ONCA 172
[11] Pierce v. Zock, 2019 ONSC 4156.
[12] Ibid at para 14.
[13] Raimundo, supra note 1 at para 15.
[14] Ibid at para 16.
[15] Ibid at para 18.
[16] Sasso v. Sasso, 2021 ONSC 3259.
[17] Raimundo, supra note 1 at para 20.
[18] Ibid at para 21.
[19] Ibid at para 22.
[20] Ibid at para 24.
[21] Ibid at para 25.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Ibid at para 26.
[25] Ibid at para 25.
Menu
Written by: Emily Caza
Posted on: November 28, 2025
Categories: Commentary, WEL Newsletter
Estate administration can become paralyzed when an appointed trustee refuses to act, especially where beneficiaries are in conflict and no substitute trustee is named in the will. Raimundo et al v. Andrade et al.[1], 2025 ONSC 6278, provides a clear and practical application of the Court’s authority to remove an unwilling estate trustee and appoint a neutral professional replacement, despite the objections of a single beneficiary.
Justice Di Luca’s endorsement addresses two issues:
Background
Zelia Maria Andrade (the “Deceased”) died on May 25, 2024, leaving a will dated October 11, 2018 (the “Will”), naming Shannon Durno (“Ms. Durno”) – a lawyer who drafted the Will – as her estate trustee. No alternate trustee was provided.[2]
After the death, Ms. Durno retained Aleksandr Bolotenko Professional Corporation (“ABPC”) to assist with administration, engaged in correspondence with beneficiary Fernando Andrade (the “opposing beneficiary”), and defended against his will challenge.[3] Out of caution, Ms. Durno later terminated ABPC and retained LawPRO counsel.[4] Separately, the applicant beneficiaries retained ABPC to vacate Fernando’s notice of objection.[5] That objection was ultimately dismissed by Justice Speyer, with costs against Fernando.[6]
Throughout, Ms. Durno consistently expressed that she did not wish to act as estate trustee.
Most beneficiaries supported appointing Mr. Bolotenko as the successor. The opposing beneficiary objected, raising concerns about conflict, rearguing issues from the will challenge, and indicating dissatisfaction with the result of prior proceedings. [7]
Analysis
1. Removal of the Estate Trustee
Intermeddling and the inability to renounce
Justice Di Luca found that Ms. Durno had taken more than de minimis steps in the administration: retaining counsel, corresponding with beneficiaries, and participating in litigation related to the will.[8] Applying Chambers Estate v. Chambers[9], 2013 ONCA 511, the Court held that she had “intermeddled” and therefore could not simply renounce.
Court’s jurisdiction to remove an unwilling trustee
Justice Di Luca reaffirmed the Court’s authority under Trustee Act, ss. 37(1), 5 and jurisprudence including Evans v. Gonder Estate[10], 2010 ONCA 172 and Pierce v. Zock[11], 2019 ONSC 4156 to remove a trustee who is unwilling or unable to act.[12] The court “cannot force an unwilling estate trustee to act.”[13]
Given Ms. Durno’s unequivocal refusal to act, Justice Di Luca ordered that she be removed.
2. Appointment of a Succeeding Estate Trustee
The need for a replacement
Where a trustee is removed, the Court must appoint a replacement to ensure proper estate administration.[14] All parties, except the opposing beneficiary, supported appointing Mr. Bolotenko, who practices in estates and has experience serving as an estate trustee.[15]
The conflict-of-interest objection
The opposing beneficiary asserted that Bolotenko was conflicted because his firm had previously:
The Court carefully analyzed whether any disqualifying conflict existed.
Relying on Sasso v. Sasso[16], 2021 ONSC 3259, Justice Di Luca emphasized that conflict arises where a trustee’s personal interests are at odds with their fiduciary duties.[17] Here:
Thus, no personal conflict existed.
Failure of the objecting beneficiary to propose an alternative
All the estate’s beneficiaries – save for one – were comfortable with Mr. Bolotenko’s appointment.[22] Mr. Bolotenko was an experienced estates lawyer, understood his role, and would be accountable to the Court.[23]
Notably, the opposing beneficiary declined to propose any alternative estate trustee, and his objections appeared tied to displeasure with the earlier will-challenge decision.[24]
3. Appointment Granted
Justice Di Luca concluded that “little, if any, risk of conflict in these circumstances” existed.[25] Bolotenko was therefore appointed as succeeding estate trustee.
Final Thoughts
Raimundo reinforces the Court’s pragmatic approach to ensuring estates continue to move forward even in the face of interpersonal conflict, mistrust, or litigation fatigue. It confirms that removal of an unwilling trustee is possible even where intermeddling has occurred, and that allegations of conflict must be grounded in fact, not suspicion.
The decision also highlights the Court’s willingness to appoint professional trustees particularly estate lawyers, where doing so will stabilize administration, protect beneficiaries, and reduce the risk of further litigation.
—
[1] Raimundo et al v. Andrade et al, 2025 ONSC 6278 [Raimundo].
[2] Ibid at para 4.
[3] Ibid at para 5.
[4] Ibid at para 6.
[5] Ibid at para 8.
[6] Ibid at para 9.
[7] Ibid at paras 2-3.
[8] Ibid at paras 12-13.
[9] Chambers Estate v. Chambers, 2013 ONCA 511.
[10] Evans v. Gonder Estate, 2010 ONCA 172
[11] Pierce v. Zock, 2019 ONSC 4156.
[12] Ibid at para 14.
[13] Raimundo, supra note 1 at para 15.
[14] Ibid at para 16.
[15] Ibid at para 18.
[16] Sasso v. Sasso, 2021 ONSC 3259.
[17] Raimundo, supra note 1 at para 20.
[18] Ibid at para 21.
[19] Ibid at para 22.
[20] Ibid at para 24.
[21] Ibid at para 25.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Ibid at para 26.
[25] Ibid at para 25.
Author
View all posts