Renunciation & Intermeddling – Which Trustee Actions Cross the Line?
Not all help is harmless. In the world of estate law, even small acts by a trustee can turn a ‘helping hand’ into ‘intermeddling,’ blocking them from stepping back entirely. But which actions really cross the line?
Background
A previous blog post written by my colleague discussed the differences between Renunciation and Resignation – found here.
In brief, Renunciation is the formal act whereby an Estate Trustee entitled to a grant of probate renounces that right.[1] Where an Estate Trustee/ prospective Estate Trustee seeks to renounce, it must be the case that they have taken no actions to administer the Estate. Such actions, referred to as “intermeddling,” will preclude an Estate Trustee from renouncing.[2]
As an addendum to his work, I’ll seek to further clarify what actions may qualify as “intermeddling”. From my research on the topic, Deuck v Chaplin[3] and Chieffallo v Blair[4] ought to be considered instructive to understanding what actions may constitute as intermeddling.
Dueck v Chaplin
In Dueck, citing from Chambers Estate, the Court accepted as a proposition of law that “intermeddling” includes acts by a person who deals with the Estate before being formally appointed, and that such acts could prevent later renunciation.[5] In this case, co-Estate Trustee sought to be removed and submitted that their actions to date did not amount to anything substantive.[6] From the date of death to the date of the application, the co-Estate Trustees had paid outstanding debts, consolidated assets, paid the Estate Administration Tax Act fees,[7] and paid for a portion of outstanding funeral expenses.
The Court found that the co-Estate Trustee’s actions had amounted to intermeddling which thereby precluded them from renouncing.[8] Notably, the Court emphasized that in response to a Notice of Objection the co-Estates Trustees had applied for a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee with a Will.[9]
Chieffallo v Blair
In Chieffallo the Court considered whether steps taken by a named Estate Trustee, such as transferring Estate assets and paying bills, constituted intermeddling, thereby preventing renunciation. The Court cited Chambers as the leading authority and confirmed that even slight acts of intermeddling may preclude renunciation, but that the rule is applied with some flexibility depending on the circumstances.[10]
In this case, one of the jointly appointed Estate Trustees had withdrawn estate assets from some of the Deceased’s bank accounts, had consolidated accounts, and had paid some household bills, at the direction of his co-Estate Trustee.[11] Justice Bell found that this level of involvement did not rise to the level of intermeddling, but rather was reflective of a few minor steps to preserve the Estate.[12]
In an illustrative secondary source, authors note that payment of funeral expenses or debts, making inquiries into assets and liabilities of an Estate, and “acts of necessity” do not in and of themselves constitute intermeddling.[13]
Final Remarks
Understanding intermeddling is crucial for anyone navigating Estate administration. While courts recognize that some actions, such as paying funeral expenses or protecting assets, are necessary and do not necessarily rise to the level of intermeddling, even minor steps by a prospective trustee can preclude renunciation.
The key takeaway is that trustees should act cautiously and seek guidance before taking any steps, otherwise they risk incurring legal exposure for their actions as a fiduciary de son tort. By knowing where that line lies, trustees can fulfill their duties responsibly while preserving their legal options.
—
[1] Halsbury’s Laws of Canada, Wills and Estates, 1st ed. (Reissue) (Markham: LexisNexis Canada Inc., 2012), at p. 537; for more probate see my article – found here.
[2] Chambers Estate v. Chambers, 2013 ONCA 511 (CanLII), at para 66. (“Chambers Estate”)
[3] Dueck v. Chaplin, 2015 ONSC 4604 (CanLII). (“Dueck”)
[4] Chieffallo v. Blair, 2025 ONSC 3411 (CanLII). (“Chieffallo”)
[5] Dueck, at paras 42-43.
[6] Ibid., at para 15.
[7] Estate Administration Tax Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 34, Sched.
[8] Ibid., at para 42.
[9] Ibid., at para 15.
[10] Chieffallo, at para 27.
[11] Ibid., at para 28.
[12] Ibid., at paras 29-30.
[13] Martin Rochwerg, Rahul Sharma & Sandra Enticknap, Miller Thomson on Estate Planning (loose-leaf, online), “§ 7:24 Administration of Estates and Trusts” at § 7:24 (MILLRTHMSEP-WL).
Menu
Written by: Grant Swedak
Posted on: December 8, 2025
Categories: Commentary
Not all help is harmless. In the world of estate law, even small acts by a trustee can turn a ‘helping hand’ into ‘intermeddling,’ blocking them from stepping back entirely. But which actions really cross the line?
Background
A previous blog post written by my colleague discussed the differences between Renunciation and Resignation – found here.
In brief, Renunciation is the formal act whereby an Estate Trustee entitled to a grant of probate renounces that right.[1] Where an Estate Trustee/ prospective Estate Trustee seeks to renounce, it must be the case that they have taken no actions to administer the Estate. Such actions, referred to as “intermeddling,” will preclude an Estate Trustee from renouncing.[2]
As an addendum to his work, I’ll seek to further clarify what actions may qualify as “intermeddling”. From my research on the topic, Deuck v Chaplin[3] and Chieffallo v Blair[4] ought to be considered instructive to understanding what actions may constitute as intermeddling.
Dueck v Chaplin
In Dueck, citing from Chambers Estate, the Court accepted as a proposition of law that “intermeddling” includes acts by a person who deals with the Estate before being formally appointed, and that such acts could prevent later renunciation.[5] In this case, co-Estate Trustee sought to be removed and submitted that their actions to date did not amount to anything substantive.[6] From the date of death to the date of the application, the co-Estate Trustees had paid outstanding debts, consolidated assets, paid the Estate Administration Tax Act fees,[7] and paid for a portion of outstanding funeral expenses.
The Court found that the co-Estate Trustee’s actions had amounted to intermeddling which thereby precluded them from renouncing.[8] Notably, the Court emphasized that in response to a Notice of Objection the co-Estates Trustees had applied for a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee with a Will.[9]
Chieffallo v Blair
In Chieffallo the Court considered whether steps taken by a named Estate Trustee, such as transferring Estate assets and paying bills, constituted intermeddling, thereby preventing renunciation. The Court cited Chambers as the leading authority and confirmed that even slight acts of intermeddling may preclude renunciation, but that the rule is applied with some flexibility depending on the circumstances.[10]
In this case, one of the jointly appointed Estate Trustees had withdrawn estate assets from some of the Deceased’s bank accounts, had consolidated accounts, and had paid some household bills, at the direction of his co-Estate Trustee.[11] Justice Bell found that this level of involvement did not rise to the level of intermeddling, but rather was reflective of a few minor steps to preserve the Estate.[12]
In an illustrative secondary source, authors note that payment of funeral expenses or debts, making inquiries into assets and liabilities of an Estate, and “acts of necessity” do not in and of themselves constitute intermeddling.[13]
Final Remarks
Understanding intermeddling is crucial for anyone navigating Estate administration. While courts recognize that some actions, such as paying funeral expenses or protecting assets, are necessary and do not necessarily rise to the level of intermeddling, even minor steps by a prospective trustee can preclude renunciation.
The key takeaway is that trustees should act cautiously and seek guidance before taking any steps, otherwise they risk incurring legal exposure for their actions as a fiduciary de son tort. By knowing where that line lies, trustees can fulfill their duties responsibly while preserving their legal options.
—
[1] Halsbury’s Laws of Canada, Wills and Estates, 1st ed. (Reissue) (Markham: LexisNexis Canada Inc., 2012), at p. 537; for more probate see my article – found here.
[2] Chambers Estate v. Chambers, 2013 ONCA 511 (CanLII), at para 66. (“Chambers Estate”)
[3] Dueck v. Chaplin, 2015 ONSC 4604 (CanLII). (“Dueck”)
[4] Chieffallo v. Blair, 2025 ONSC 3411 (CanLII). (“Chieffallo”)
[5] Dueck, at paras 42-43.
[6] Ibid., at para 15.
[7] Estate Administration Tax Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 34, Sched.
[8] Ibid., at para 42.
[9] Ibid., at para 15.
[10] Chieffallo, at para 27.
[11] Ibid., at para 28.
[12] Ibid., at paras 29-30.
[13] Martin Rochwerg, Rahul Sharma & Sandra Enticknap, Miller Thomson on Estate Planning (loose-leaf, online), “§ 7:24 Administration of Estates and Trusts” at § 7:24 (MILLRTHMSEP-WL).
Author
View all posts