The appellant and respondent, adult siblings, were named co-estate trustees of their father's estate.
Disagreements arose over the payment of estate debts, leading to a breakdown in the administration of the estate.
The application judge removed the appellant as estate trustee, finding she had obstructed the estate's administration and preferred her own interests, while dismissing the application to remove the respondent.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's discretionary decision and concluding that the appellant's arguments regarding the law of abatement were an ex post facto rationalization for her conduct.
