In Thorne v Thorne, 2026 SKKB 40 (“Thorne”) the court addressed the removal of an estate trustee who failed to administer the Estate in a reasonable and prudent manner. Thorne provides a reminder of the responsibilities placed on estate trustees and the legal consequences that can arise when those responsibilities are not properly carried out.

Background

Richard T. (the “Deceased”) passed away on March 25, 2018, and was survived by his three children, namely Lia T. (“Tanit”), Brendan T. (“Brendan”) (collectively the “Applicants”), and Keili T. (the “Respondent”) (collectively the “parties”). The Respondent alleged that the Deceased passed away testate, while the Applicants contested the validity of the purported Will (the “Will”). The purported Will provided the entirety of the Deceased’s estate (the “Estate”) to the Respondent and appointed her as estate trustee.[1]

The parties appeared before Justice Currie, who determined that the Respondent needed to prove the Will in Solemn form. On June 2, 2022, the parties reached a settlement (the “Agreement”) which provided that the Applicants would receive 20% of the Estate and $50,000 for their legal fees, while the Respondent would receive the remainder of the Estate. The Agreement also provided that the Respondent was required to produce an accounting.[2]

The Respondent failed to provide an accounting by the required date, and the materials that were submitted by the Respondent as a purported accounting were described by the court as “woefully inadequate”.[3] The Respondent’s accounting didn’t provide supporting bank statements, explanations for missing funds or statements verifying the amount paid for the Deceased’s visa card. Estate funds provided to the Respondent for probate fees were also not accounted for by the Respondent.[4]

On this basis, the Applicants contended that they would not receive the entirety of the 20% of the Estate that they initially agreed upon in the Agreement. The Applicants asserted that the court should remove the Respondent as the estate trustee and appoint their aunt, Peggy A. (“Peggy”) as the replacement estate trustee.[5]

The Respondent rejected the Applicants’ position, maintaining that she did not engage in any conduct that hindered the administration of the estate. She further asserted that she had not committed any fraud or theft. On this basis, the Respondent argued that she should remain as the estate trustee.[6]

The Law

Section of 14.1(1) of The Administration of Estate Act, SS 1998 (the “Act”), provides that a person with an interest in an estate may bring an application for the court to remove an estate trustee if the court is satisfied that the estate trustee has:

1. Failed to comply with an order of the court;
2. Refused to administer or settle the estate;
3. Failed to administer the estate in a reasonable and prudent manner;
4. Lacked capacity to act as an executor or administrator;
5. Previously convicted of an offence involving dishonesty; or
6. Is an undischarged bankrupt.[7]

The court provided that this includes the estate trustee’s duty to account pursuant to section 35(1) of the Act.

The court quoting Watson v Chelak, 2025 SKKB 30, noted that an estate trustee must not be removed in haste, as is further detailed below:

The authorities indicate that a court should not act too readily to remove an executor. As Wimmer J. said in Surminsky (Litigation Guardian of) v. Ulmer Estate, 2000 SKQB 209, “To override a testator’s choice of an executor is a sensitive exercise not to be lightly undertaken.” See also: Mitchell Estate, Re, [2006 SKQB 267, 280 Sask R 151] supra at para. 10.[8]

However, the court citing Leier v Probe, 2021 SKQB 41 went on to state that the court owes an “overriding duty to ensure that the estate will be properly administered and the primary focus is the best interests of the beneficiaries”.[9]

Analysis

The court determined that the Respondents’ removal as estate trustee was necessary since she didn’t follow the terms of the Agreement, which asserted that the Respondent must provide a fulsome accounting. The Respondent also failed to get the Estate’s tax issues in order, in compliance with the rules of the Canada Revenue Agency (the “CRA”).

The Respondent explained that her reason for failing to account for the rental income from the Deceased’s property was that she incorrectly relied on prior legal advice not to include it. The court characterized the Respondents reasoning for failing to account as “risible”.[10] The court determined that it was prudent for a new estate trustee to be appointed given the Estate’s outstanding issues with CRA. The court concluded that the Respondent had failed to fulfil her obligations as estate trustee, and that her removal was in the best interests of the beneficiaries. [11]

Concluding Remarks

Estate trustees are legally obligated to act with diligence, prudence, and transparency, particularly in providing full and accurate accountings. Failure to meet these responsibilities can lead to removal, as occurred in Thorne v Thorne.

—

[1] Thorne v Thorne, 2026 SKKB 40 at para 4

[2] Ibid at para 5

[3] Ibid at para 8

[4] Ibid at para 8

[5] Ibid at para 9

[6] Ibid at para 18

[7] Ibid at para 10

[8] Ibid at para 11

[9] Ibid at para 51

[10] Ibid at para 21

[11] Ibid at para 24