It is trite law that a beneficiary to an estate has the right to full disclosure in regard to all assets, liabilities, and financial dealings of an estate.[1] When a beneficiary feels as though an estate trustee has mismanaged the finances or has otherwise failed to adequately administer an estate, they often can and will hold that estate trustee to pass their accounts before a court. Although it is often well within an estate trustee’s obligations to pass their accounts before a court should a beneficiary demand it, it is not always the case that a court will compel them to do so. Recently, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice had to rule on such a circumstance in the case of Jacobelli v. Scanga et al.[2]
Background
The plaintiff in this case, Mirella Jacobelli (the “Plaintiff”) and the two individual defendants, Andy and Nino Scanga (the “Defendants”), were siblings and the three named beneficiaries to the estate of their late mother, Adelina Scanga (the “Deceased”), who passed away in 2010. All three parties are additionally the directors of the defendant corporation, F & A Scanga Holdings Limited (the “Corporation”).
In 2023, the Plaintiff commenced the action against her brothers, claiming that they had mismanaged and misappropriated the estate’s assets, embezzled funds from the corporation, and had failed to adequately pay dividends, reimbursements, and other debts owed to the Plaintiff since May of 2010.
Prior to her death, the Deceased had been the sole shareholder in the Corporation. Her assets were largely comprised of 24,610 preference shares in the Corporation, a residential property, a mutual fund investment account worth roughly $40,000 and a chequing account with approximately $56,000 in it.
The Defendants were the two trustees named in the Deceased’s will (the “Will”). The Defendants filed affidavit material showing that the assets of the estate listed above were distributed in three equal shares to the three beneficiaries in 2011, with the administration of the estate concluding in 2012. The Defendants wished to reside in the residential property and bought out the Plaintiff’s share in the home for one third the fair market value amount.
The primary business of the corporation relates to the management of its main asset which is a commercial property located in Ajax. The property is worth roughly $6,000,000 and the Defendants manage the day-to day affairs of the Corporation.
The Plaintiff had been content to leave the management of the Corporation to the Defendants until 2021, when she learned that her brothers intended to sell the main asset of the Corporation, as they wanted to wind down their business activities. Up until that point, the Plaintiff had been receiving annual payments based on her share holdings, and the Defendants had met with her each year to give her the opportunity to review the company financial statements.
Relief Sought
In her application, the Plaintiff sought the following relief
- An order requiring the Defendants to produce a better Affidavit of Documents in relation to the accounts of the Deceased’s estate and the Corporation;
- An order requiring the Defendants to file a statement setting out the nature and value of the Deceased’s assets as of time of death;
- An order for a passing of accounts of the estate;
- An order compelling the Defendants to provide full financial disclosure for the Corporation;
- An order restricting the Defendants from taking further money or assets from the Corporation.
Analysis
Justice Smith of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed each point of relief sought by the Plaintiff individually.
1. Affidavit of Documents
In her pleadings, the Plaintiff sought a wealth of information from the Defendants, including income tax returns, Terminal tax returns, clearance certificates from the CRA, statements of assets, bank statements from the date of the Deceased’s death, details of withdrawals made in the 6 months prior to death, lease agreements, insurance policies, and a general accounting. Justice Smith found that, although as a beneficiary she has a right to full disclosure of the assets of the estate, a large number of the documents that she requested will have, in all likelihood, been destroyed or otherwise made unavailable.
The court ultimately found that the Plaintiff had been provided with a significant amount of documentation about the financial affairs of the Corporation, as she was previously given the opportunity to inspect the corporate records on a yearly basis. Asking for the entirety of the general accounting of the Corporation from 2010-2023 was found to be overreaching and disproportionate to the claims asserted by the Plaintiff. As such, the court did not order the Defendants to produce these documents.
2. Statement of Assets
Rule 74.15(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure[3] provides that a person who has a financial interest in an estate may move for an order requiring the estate trustee to file a statement of the nature and value, at the date of death, of each of the assets of the estate. While it was uncontested that the Deceased’s estates consisted of the assets listed above, the Plaintiff additionally asserted that she suspected that there were additional assets not disclosed. However, despite this suspicion, the Plaintiff was unable to provide any evidence to support the belief, nor did she provide an explanation as to what caused her strong belief.
The court found clear uncontested evidence that the above assets were distributed equally. However, the court did note that there were a number of chattels associated with the residential property whose distribution was not clearly documented. Justice Smith found that the Plaintiff did not assert any interest in any of those items at the material time, so she could not assert an interest in them over a decade later. As such, no statement of assets, as contemplated in Rule 74.15(d), was ordered.
3. Passing of Accounts
Rule 74.15 (1)(h) of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that any person who appears to have a financial interest in an estate may move for an order requiring the estate trustee to pass accounts.[4] The rule does not provide that such an order shall be made, rather such orders are within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter.[5]
The Court found that an order for a passing of accounts may be required where an applicant raises a “significant concern in respect of the estate trustees management of the estate whether related to misfeasance, wrongdoing, or a significant erosion of estate.”[6] Accordingly, Justice Smith found that the mere suggestion of malfeasance without some further evidentiary basis is insufficient grounds upon which to order a passing of accounts. Additionally, this was particularly the case where over a decade has passed since the death, and over 13 years have elapsed since the estate was finalized.[7]
The particular factors relied upon by Justice Smith in coming to this finding were as follows:
- There was no evidentiary foundation supporting any inappropriate behaviour by the Defendants;
- The Plaintiff did not raise concerns or complaints between 2010 and 2023;
- The Defendants had provided the Plaintiff with a wealth of documents regarding the administration prior to the proceedings;
- The Defendants supplied a lengthy affidavit within the proceedings setting out the actions taken in the management of the estate; and
- The Plaintiff did not seek any accounting or request copies of documentation until 2021.
As such, based on the Plaintiff’s inaction, Justice Smith accordingly exercised their discretion to decline to make an order for a passing of accounts.
Given the above findings, Justice Smith did not see reason to go in depth with regards to the remainder of the Plaintiff’s pled relief.
Final Thoughts
Throughout the decision, Justice Smith makes it clear that a beneficiary to an estate is presumptively entitled to full disclosure in regard to the administration of an estate. Despite that, a passing of accounts was, rightfully so, still not ordered here. This holding, which has not been appealed, stands for the proposition that, although a beneficiary is entitled to quite a large amount of disclosure, there are clear limitations. Although a large part of Justice Smith’s decision was founded on the significant delay between the conclusion of the administration of the estate and the proceedings, that alone was not completely dispositive. Should the Defendants not have provided any disclosure whatsoever, it is certainly possible, and perhaps even probable, that a passing of accounts would still have been ordered. Therefore, despite the fact that no passing was ordered here, a prospective estate trustee should still be aware of the strict disclosure obligations placed on them in their capacity as trustee, and should always be prepared to provide transparency in their administration of an estate.
—
[1] Kresowaty Estate v. Ontario (Public Guardian & Trustee), 1998 CarswellOnt 2135
[2] Jacobelli v. Scanga et al, 2025 ONSC 2248
[3] Courts of Justice Act R.R.O. 1990, REGULATION 194 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
[4] Ibid at Rule 74.15(1)(h)
[5] See Munro v Thomas, 2021 ONSC 3320
[6] Supra note 2 at para 46 citing Huang v Nie, 2024 ONSC 2398 at paragraph 16.
[7] Supra note 2 at para 48
Menu
Written by: Mark Polese
Posted on: April 1, 2026
Categories: Commentary
It is trite law that a beneficiary to an estate has the right to full disclosure in regard to all assets, liabilities, and financial dealings of an estate.[1] When a beneficiary feels as though an estate trustee has mismanaged the finances or has otherwise failed to adequately administer an estate, they often can and will hold that estate trustee to pass their accounts before a court. Although it is often well within an estate trustee’s obligations to pass their accounts before a court should a beneficiary demand it, it is not always the case that a court will compel them to do so. Recently, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice had to rule on such a circumstance in the case of Jacobelli v. Scanga et al.[2]
Background
The plaintiff in this case, Mirella Jacobelli (the “Plaintiff”) and the two individual defendants, Andy and Nino Scanga (the “Defendants”), were siblings and the three named beneficiaries to the estate of their late mother, Adelina Scanga (the “Deceased”), who passed away in 2010. All three parties are additionally the directors of the defendant corporation, F & A Scanga Holdings Limited (the “Corporation”).
In 2023, the Plaintiff commenced the action against her brothers, claiming that they had mismanaged and misappropriated the estate’s assets, embezzled funds from the corporation, and had failed to adequately pay dividends, reimbursements, and other debts owed to the Plaintiff since May of 2010.
Prior to her death, the Deceased had been the sole shareholder in the Corporation. Her assets were largely comprised of 24,610 preference shares in the Corporation, a residential property, a mutual fund investment account worth roughly $40,000 and a chequing account with approximately $56,000 in it.
The Defendants were the two trustees named in the Deceased’s will (the “Will”). The Defendants filed affidavit material showing that the assets of the estate listed above were distributed in three equal shares to the three beneficiaries in 2011, with the administration of the estate concluding in 2012. The Defendants wished to reside in the residential property and bought out the Plaintiff’s share in the home for one third the fair market value amount.
The primary business of the corporation relates to the management of its main asset which is a commercial property located in Ajax. The property is worth roughly $6,000,000 and the Defendants manage the day-to day affairs of the Corporation.
The Plaintiff had been content to leave the management of the Corporation to the Defendants until 2021, when she learned that her brothers intended to sell the main asset of the Corporation, as they wanted to wind down their business activities. Up until that point, the Plaintiff had been receiving annual payments based on her share holdings, and the Defendants had met with her each year to give her the opportunity to review the company financial statements.
Relief Sought
In her application, the Plaintiff sought the following relief
Analysis
Justice Smith of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed each point of relief sought by the Plaintiff individually.
1. Affidavit of Documents
In her pleadings, the Plaintiff sought a wealth of information from the Defendants, including income tax returns, Terminal tax returns, clearance certificates from the CRA, statements of assets, bank statements from the date of the Deceased’s death, details of withdrawals made in the 6 months prior to death, lease agreements, insurance policies, and a general accounting. Justice Smith found that, although as a beneficiary she has a right to full disclosure of the assets of the estate, a large number of the documents that she requested will have, in all likelihood, been destroyed or otherwise made unavailable.
The court ultimately found that the Plaintiff had been provided with a significant amount of documentation about the financial affairs of the Corporation, as she was previously given the opportunity to inspect the corporate records on a yearly basis. Asking for the entirety of the general accounting of the Corporation from 2010-2023 was found to be overreaching and disproportionate to the claims asserted by the Plaintiff. As such, the court did not order the Defendants to produce these documents.
2. Statement of Assets
Rule 74.15(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure[3] provides that a person who has a financial interest in an estate may move for an order requiring the estate trustee to file a statement of the nature and value, at the date of death, of each of the assets of the estate. While it was uncontested that the Deceased’s estates consisted of the assets listed above, the Plaintiff additionally asserted that she suspected that there were additional assets not disclosed. However, despite this suspicion, the Plaintiff was unable to provide any evidence to support the belief, nor did she provide an explanation as to what caused her strong belief.
The court found clear uncontested evidence that the above assets were distributed equally. However, the court did note that there were a number of chattels associated with the residential property whose distribution was not clearly documented. Justice Smith found that the Plaintiff did not assert any interest in any of those items at the material time, so she could not assert an interest in them over a decade later. As such, no statement of assets, as contemplated in Rule 74.15(d), was ordered.
3. Passing of Accounts
Rule 74.15 (1)(h) of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that any person who appears to have a financial interest in an estate may move for an order requiring the estate trustee to pass accounts.[4] The rule does not provide that such an order shall be made, rather such orders are within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter.[5]
The Court found that an order for a passing of accounts may be required where an applicant raises a “significant concern in respect of the estate trustees management of the estate whether related to misfeasance, wrongdoing, or a significant erosion of estate.”[6] Accordingly, Justice Smith found that the mere suggestion of malfeasance without some further evidentiary basis is insufficient grounds upon which to order a passing of accounts. Additionally, this was particularly the case where over a decade has passed since the death, and over 13 years have elapsed since the estate was finalized.[7]
The particular factors relied upon by Justice Smith in coming to this finding were as follows:
As such, based on the Plaintiff’s inaction, Justice Smith accordingly exercised their discretion to decline to make an order for a passing of accounts.
Given the above findings, Justice Smith did not see reason to go in depth with regards to the remainder of the Plaintiff’s pled relief.
Final Thoughts
Throughout the decision, Justice Smith makes it clear that a beneficiary to an estate is presumptively entitled to full disclosure in regard to the administration of an estate. Despite that, a passing of accounts was, rightfully so, still not ordered here. This holding, which has not been appealed, stands for the proposition that, although a beneficiary is entitled to quite a large amount of disclosure, there are clear limitations. Although a large part of Justice Smith’s decision was founded on the significant delay between the conclusion of the administration of the estate and the proceedings, that alone was not completely dispositive. Should the Defendants not have provided any disclosure whatsoever, it is certainly possible, and perhaps even probable, that a passing of accounts would still have been ordered. Therefore, despite the fact that no passing was ordered here, a prospective estate trustee should still be aware of the strict disclosure obligations placed on them in their capacity as trustee, and should always be prepared to provide transparency in their administration of an estate.
—
[1] Kresowaty Estate v. Ontario (Public Guardian & Trustee), 1998 CarswellOnt 2135
[2] Jacobelli v. Scanga et al, 2025 ONSC 2248
[3] Courts of Justice Act R.R.O. 1990, REGULATION 194 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
[4] Ibid at Rule 74.15(1)(h)
[5] See Munro v Thomas, 2021 ONSC 3320
[6] Supra note 2 at para 46 citing Huang v Nie, 2024 ONSC 2398 at paragraph 16.
[7] Supra note 2 at para 48
Author
View all posts