COURT FILE NO.: 15-65662 DATE: 2016/06/06 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Nam Reid Catto and Chuck Catto Applicants – and – Donna McKay in her personal capacity and in her capacity as Estate Trustee of the Estate of Mark Catto Respondents

COUNSEL: Miriam Vale Peters, for the Applicants Larry Douglas Love, for the Respondents

HEARD: April 19, 2016

REASONS FOR DECISION

R. Smith J.

Overview

[1] Mark Catto (the “deceased”) or (“Mark”) died suddenly in Kingston, Ontario on May 16, 2014 without a will. He was 50 years old at the time of his death and had been married to Donna McKay, (“Donna”) the respondent, for approximately one year. They had no children. Nan Reid Catto (“Nan”) is the deceased’s mother. She seeks an order directing that Mark’s ashes be exhumed from his grave in Peterborough and half of his ashes be returned to her for burial in the family plot in Lacolle, Québec. Nan also seeks an order appointing her as Estate trustee without a will.

[2] In addition, Nan seeks an order directing the respondent’s Estate to repay her for the monies she paid for Mark’s funeral and other expenses related to her son’s death. Finally, Chuck Catto, (“Chuck”) seeks an order to inspect the hockey card collection to try to determine which hockey cards that were in Mark’s possession belonged to him.

Issues

[3] The following issues must be decided:

(1) Does the Court have jurisdiction to proceed with this matter as an application in Ottawa?

(2) Should Mark’s wife or his mother be named as the administrator or Estate Trustee of Mark’s Estate?

(3) Should the Court order that Mark’s ashes be exhumed and one half of his ashes be given to his mother for burial in the family plot in Lacolle, Québec?

(4) Should Mark’s Estate be ordered to repay Nan the amount she paid for the funeral expenses or was it a gift to the Estate?

(5) Should Chuck be allowed to inspect the hockey card collection to attempt to identify which cards belong to him?

Background

[4] The applicants allege that Mark wished to be buried in the family’s cemetery plot in Lacolle, Québec. Nan also alleges that Donna agreed that Mark’s funeral would occur in Lacolle, Québec and that his ashes would be buried in the family plot in Lacolle provided a place was arranged for her ashes to be buried beside Mark’s.

[5] Donna states that her sister and Nan made the funeral arrangements and the arrangements for the burial of Mark’s ashes in Lacolle, Québec. She states that she never specifically agreed to have Mark’s ashes buried in the Catto family plot in Lacolle, Québec. She states that this agreement would have been made with her sister, Laura, who was involved with making the funeral arrangements following Mark’s death due to Donna’s distressed state.

[6] Donna has submitted a report from Mary Anderson, a nurse practitioner who is a rehabilitation nurse consultant. In her report, Ms. Anderson stated that Donna had suffered a serious brain injury when she was thirteen years old. Ms. Anderson stated that she worked with Donna to assist her with her cognitive deficit, which she suffered as a result of her brain injury. Ms. Anderson also stated that, in her opinion, the trauma Donna suffered due to Mark’s death would have rendered her mentally incapacitated to enter into any informed agreement about the burial of his ashes.

[7] I do not give Ms. Anderson’s opinion evidence any weight for the following reasons:

(a) She was not qualified as an expert to give evidence about Donna’s mental state at the time she agreed to the burial arrangements;

(b) there is no evidence that Ms. Anderson saw or met with or was in contact with Donna McKay during the time period following Mark’s death;

(c) Ms. Anderson does not make any observations or give any reasons that would support such a finding because she did not have any contact with Donna at the time the agreement was made concerning the burial of Mark’s ashes; and

(d) Donna agreed that she changed her mind about burying Mark’s ashes in Lacolle, Québec. Following the funeral, she asked the funeral director to give her the urn containing Mark’s ashes so she could take them back with her to Peterborough. This indicates that she was capable of deciding that she did not want Mark’s ashes buried in Lacolle, Québec at that time.

Funeral Expenses

[8] Donna’s sister Laura paid an initial deposit of $3,000 towards the funeral expenses as Donna did not have the funds available to do so. In total, Laura paid $5,275.16 towards the funeral expenses. Nan repaid Laura for the total amount she paid for the funeral expenses and she also paid the funeral director the balance of the amount owing for the funeral expenses. The total amount paid by Nan for Mark’s burial expenses was $9,038.32.

[9] One of the items on the invoice from the funeral director was for $100 for cemetery fees to open the ground. This is consistent with an initial agreement to bury Mark’s ashes in the Catto family plot in Lacolle, Québec.

Burial of the ashes

[10] Before the ashes were buried in the Catto family plot, Donna advised the funeral Director that she wished to take the ashes with her back to Peterborough. The urn containing Mark’s ashes was given to her by the funeral Director.

[11] Donna stated in her affidavit that on May 22, 2014, (two days before the funeral which was held on May 24, 2014), Nan allowed her to take Mark’s ashes back to Peterborough for a while. The funeral Director, Steve Finnigan advised Donna that it was her decision to make on where Mark was to be buried. Mark’s ashes were transported to Donna in Peterborough on or about May 27, 2014.

[12] At the end of May, 2014, Donna made a refundable arrangement for the burial of Mark’s ashes at a time of her choosing with the Rosemount Memorial Gardens in Peterborough. On September 5, 2014, Donna decided to have the urn containing Mark’s ashes interred in the Rosemount Memorial Gardens in Peterborough without giving notice to Nan any of the other Catto family members.

[13] In November of 2014, Donna advised Nan that she had interred the urn containing Mark’s ashes at the Rosemount Memorial Gardens in Peterborough in September of 2014.

Assets of the Estate and Life Insurance Benefits

[14] The assets of the Estate are limited and as a result, letters of administration were not required in order to administer the Estate. Mark’s Estate was entitled to receive the following amounts from his employer, UPS Canada: a) $17,752.50 as a salary continuation benefit less applicable deductions, b) accrued vacation pay of $6,325.25 less a salary overpayment of $2,803.50 for May of 2014, plus c) some contributions to a pension plan; and d) some UPS shares.

[15] Nan was named as the beneficiary of an $83,000 employee life insurance policy. Donna was aware of these details as they were sent to her by letter dated May 29, 2014 shortly after the funeral ceremony.

[16] From the evidence, it appears Donna was also named as the beneficiary of supplemental life insurance policies for $60,000 and $100,000. In addition, the mortgage of over $300,000 on Donna and Mark’s jointly owned home was paid off with life insurance and the $38,000 line of credit was life insured and paid off.

Issue 1 – Does the Court have jurisdiction to proceed with this matter as an application in Ottawa?

Jurisdiction

[17] Donna submits that pursuant to Rule 14.04(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 (the “Rules”), a proceeding by way of an application is not appropriate where there are material facts in dispute. Rule 14.05(3) of the Rules authorizes the commencement of a proceeding by way of an application in a number of circumstances including 14.05(3)(h) in respect of any matter where it is unlikely that there will be any material facts in dispute.

[18] However, Rule 14.05(3)(a) and (b) allows a proceeding to be brought by way of application in the following circumstances for:

(a) The opinion, advice or direction of the Court on a question affecting the rights of a person in respect of the administration of the Estate of the deceased person or the execution of a trust; and

(b) An order directing executors, administrators or trustees to do or abstain from doing any particular act in respect of an Estate or trust for which they are responsible.

[19] In this case, Nan is seeking an order directing that the administrator of Mark’s Estate to exhume him and to return half of his ashes to her for burial in Lacolle, Québec and the other half of his ashes to remain buried in Peterborough, Ontario. The application also involves deciding who should be named as Estate trustee, which is a necessary part of the administration of the Estate.

[20] Rule 9.02(1) applies to situations where the Estate does not have an executor or administrator. In this case, Mark did not have a will and therefore, an executor was not named, and an administrator or Estate trustee has not yet been appointed. Rule 9.02(1) states that where a party seeks to commence or continue a proceeding against the Estate of a deceased person, who has no executor or administrator, the Court on motion may appoint a litigation administrator to represent the Estate for purposes of the proceeding.

[21] Rule 9.03(1), states as follows:

Where a proceeding is commenced by or against a person as executor or administrator before a grant of probate or administration has been made and the person subsequently receives a grant of probate or administration, the proceeding shall be deemed to have properly been constituted from its commencement.

[22] Rule 9.03(3) states:

A proceeding commenced in the name or against a deceased person shall not be treated as a nullity and the proceeding may be continued by or against the executor or administrator, the litigation administrator for purpose of the proceeding and the title of the proceeding shall be amended accordingly.

[23] In this case Nan and Chuck have commenced an application against Donna as the Estate Trustee of the Estate of Mark Catto and this has been done before a grant of administration has been made.

[24] Rule 1.03 defines a proceeding as follows: “means an action or application.” In this case, the applicants have commenced the proceeding against Donna in her personal capacity and also against her as the Estate trustee of the Estate of Mark Catto. Both Rule 9.03(1) and (3) would be applicable and the proceeding is not a nullity.

[25] Given the context of the above Rules, I conclude that the general principles set forth in Rule 1.04(1) apply which states that: “these rules will be liberally construed to secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every civil proceeding on its merits. I find that the Court has jurisdiction to hear the application under Rule 14.05(3)(a) and (b) and pursuant to Rule 9.02(1) and (2). I further find that given the issues involved, namely whether Mark’s wife or his mother should be named as the administrator of the Estate, and will be entitled to decide where his ashes are to be buried, and secondly, whether the Court should order that half of Mark’s ashes be exhumed and buried in the family plot in Québec as requested by the applicants, that the most expeditious and least expensive approach to determine these issues is on this application as brought in Ottawa.

[26] I’m also satisfied that there are no material facts in dispute on the issues of Mark’s death, and his funeral arrangements or that the urn containing his ashes was delivered to his wife in Peterborough, and she interred his ashes in the Rosemount Cemetery on September 5, 2014 without giving any notice to the Catto family. The evidence is also not really contested that Donna, through her sister Laura, initially agreed that Mark’s ashes would be buried in the family plot in Lacolle, Québec. Initially, there was an understanding as confirmed by Donna in her affidavit that Mark’s ashes would be buried in the family plot in Lacolle, Québec. In fact Donna filed a report from a nursing consultant stating that she lacked the capacity to make this agreement at that time due to her extreme state of distress. The invoice from the funeral Director including a fee of $100 for the opening of the grave corroborates her initial agreement as this amount was charged in order to bury Mark’s ashes in the family plot. The real issue is who has authority to decide where to bury Mark’s ashes and the evidence on this issue is not contested.

[27] The facts related to the payment of the funeral expenses are also not in dispute. Nan paid $9,138.00 for the funeral and related expenses and that these expenses would normally be a debt of the Estate. However, the issue that remains in dispute is whether Nan paid the funeral expenses as a gift to the Estate or whether she paid the funeral expenses based on representations and her belief that Donna had been left in serious financial difficulty by her son and that there were no funds in the Estate to pay the funeral expenses.

Disposition of Issue #1

[28] Based on the general principle in Rule 1.04(1) and (1.1) I find that the Court has jurisdiction to hear the application in Ottawa and to decide the issues of who should be named as administrator of Mark’s Estate; who has authority to decide on the burial of Mark Catto’s ashes; whether his ashes should be exhumed and half of them returned for burial in the family plot in Lacolle, Québec; as well as the other issues raised.

Issue 2 – Who should be named the administrator (“Estate Trustee”) of Mark’s Estate?

[29] Rule 9.02 allows the Court to appoint a litigation administrator to represent the Estate for the purpose of the proceeding.

[30] Rule 74.10 (1) also allows the Court to appoint an Estate trustee during litigation and it reads as follows.

Rule 74.10 (1) – an application for an certificate of appointment of an Estate trustee during litigation shall be accompanied by,

(a) a copy of the order appointing the trustee during the litigation;

(b) a security required by the Estate Act, ; and

(c) such additional and other material as the Court directs.

[31] Section 29(1) of the Estates Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E. 21 sets out to whom the Superior Court can commit the administration of an Estate where a person dies intestate. Section 29 reads as follows:

29(1) (Subject to Subsection 3), where a person dies intestate or the executor named in the will refuses to prove the will, the administration of the property of the deceased may be committed by the Superior Court of Justice to,

(a) the person to whom the deceased was married immediately before the death of the deceased or person with whom the deceased was living in a conjugal relationship outside of marriage immediately before the death;

(b) the next of kin of the deceased; or

(c) the person mentioned in clause (a) and the next of kin, as in the discretion of the Court’s seems best, and where more persons than one claim the administration as next of kin who are equal in degree of kindred to the deceased, or where only one desires the administration as next of kin where there are more persons than one of equal kindred, the administration may be committed to such one or more of such next of kin as the Court thinks fit.

[32] In Mohammed v Heera, [2008] O.J. No. 4176, the deceased died intestate, was not married and had lived with her spouse for a substantial period of time. The deceased was killed in a car accident and was a potential member of a class action against Health Canada. An Estate trustee for the deceased had to be appointed because of the Estate’s involvement in the class action. The question was whether the designate of the spouse, who was living in a conjugal relationship with the deceased at the time of death, or the next of kin, should be appointed to administer the Estate.

[33] At para. 28 of the Mohammed decision, Warkentin J. stated as follows:

“I agree with counsel for the Applicants that a plain reading of s 29 (1) does not provide spouses or those living in a conjugal relationship with the deceased at the time of death priority to the appointment over the next of kin.

[34] In her decision, she referred to Brian Schnurr’s book entitled Estate Litigation, (Volume 2, Second Edition, Thomson and Carswell, c. 18.6 p. 23), in which the author states that the practice of the Courts has been to give priority to those living in a conjugal relationship with the deceased over the next of kin.

[35] I agree with Warkentin J. that the plain reading of s 29 does not in fact confer a priority to the spouse and the issue remains to be determined by the Court exercising its discretion as the Court deems best. In the Mohammed decision, the spouse indicated that she intended to make a dependant’s relief claim against the Estate and as such she was not an appropriate person to be named as administrator of the Estate. The spouse submitted that she should be given priority and submitted that she was entitled to name a third party who the next of kin felt was supportive of her claim for dependant’s relief and therefore objected to her appointment.

[36] At paragraph 30 of the Mohammed decision, Warkentin J. stated:

“…it may be the usual practice of the Court to appoint the spouse or person living in a conjugal relationship over the next of kin particularly when the person is married to the deceased. In those circumstances the spouse is entitled to a preferential share of the estate and one third of the residue of the estate where there are two or more children of the deceased.”

[37] In the case before me, Donna was married to the deceased and they did not have any children. Pursuant to s 44 of the Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. s.26, Donna is entitled to all of the Estate’s property absolutely.

[38] Section 44 reads as follows:

Where a person dies intestate and is survived by his spouse and is not survived by issue, the spouse is entitled to the property absolutely.

[39] In this case, Donna is entitled to all of the deceased’s property, she does not have any interest that is adverse to the Estate, and she does not have a pending claim for dependant’s relief or other relief against the Estate. In these circumstances, where there is no adverse interest, an entitlement to a preferential share and there are not any competing children’s claims, I find that surviving spouse is the person to whom administration of the Estate should be granted.

[40] In Mouaga v. Mouaga, [2003] O.J. No. 2030, Rutherford J. dealt with the issue of who had control over the body prior to burial. Rutherford J. stated “that the wife, in the absence of a will, his wife would most likely be appointed administrator of Etienne’s Estate” therefore, he held that the wife had the authority to dispose of and make decisions about the deceased’s remains. The Court deferred to the lawful spouse who was free to determine the steps she wished to take to proceed with the funeral. In the Mouaga decision the Court did not consider s 29 of the Estates Act however, it is consistent with the general practice described in Schnurr’s book on Estate Litigation stating that the usual practice is to appoint the married spouse as administrator of the Estate.

[41] Section 5 of the Estates Act was referred to me in the submissions and reads as follows:

Letters of administration shall not be granted to a person not residing in Ontario, but this does not apply to resealing letters under s 52.

[42] In this case Nan is a resident of the province of Québec and Donna is a resident of Ontario. When considering all of the above factors including that a) section 5 of the Estates Act states that letters of administration shall not be granted to a person not residing in Ontario, which applies to Nan in this case, b) the married spouse was living in a conjugal relationship with Mark immediately before his death, c) there is no conflict of interest between the married spouse and the Estate, d) there is no possible conflict between the children, and e) the married spouse is entitled to receive all of the property of the deceased, I find the wife should be given priority and named as the administrator of Mark’s Estate.

Disposition of Issue #2

[43] The administration of the Estate of Mark Catto is committed to his spouse, Donna McKay. She is entitled to be appointed as Estate trustee without a will subject to filing the required documents in the jurisdiction of the Superior Court where the deceased had his fixed place of abode at his death. As a corollary, because Donna is entitled to be the administrator of the Estate, I find that she also had the right to decide on the location and manner of the burial of Mark Catto’s ashes.

Issue 3 - Should the Court order that Mark’s ashes be exhumed and one half of his ashes be given to Nan for the burial in the family plot in Lacolle, Québec?

[44] The decision on where the deceased is to be buried and the manner of burial is a right that is granted to the administrator of the Estate which in this case, is his wife Donna. As I found that Donna should be appointed as administrator of Mark’s Estate, she is entitled to decide on the burial of his ashes and therefore, Nan’s request to have the deceased’s ashes exhumed and half of his ashes buried in Lacolle, Québec is denied.

Issue 4 – Should Mark’s Estate be ordered to repay Nan the amount she paid for the funeral expenses or was it a gift?

[45] Rule 1.04(1.1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure states as follows:

In applying the Rules, the Court shall make orders and give directions that are proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues and to the amount involved in a proceeding.

[46] Rule 1.04(1) states that:

…the Rules shall be liberally construed to secure the just most expeditious and least expensive determination of every civil proceeding on its merits.

[47] The Estate has only approximately $15,000 and the amount of $9,138.00 paid for by Nan for funeral expenses is not disputed. The only question is whether she intended to make a gift of the funeral expenses to the Estate. The parties have filed affidavit evidence and reside a substantial distance from each other. Substantial legal costs would be incurred if a trial was ordered. I find that rather than directing a trial on this issue, applying the principles set out in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, I am able to fairly and justly decide the issue in a proportionate and in the least expensive manner on the affidavit evidence before me, and decide whether the evidence supports a finding that Nan intended to make a gift of the amount of the funeral expenses to Mark’s Estate.

[48] The evidence is uncontradicted that Nan paid $9,138.00 for Mark’s funeral expenses. The evidence was not disputed that at the time of Mark’s death, Donna was “strapped for money” as she said and she believed she was in financial difficulty. Her sister, Laura, paid the initial deposit for the funeral and some other expenses because Donna did not have money to pay for them. Nan paid all of the funeral expenses based on the representations that Donna and the Estate did not have any money to pay for Mark’s funeral expenses, and based on the agreement that Mark’s ashes would be buried in the family plot in Lacolle, Québec. Nan was not aware that there were sufficient assets in the Estate to pay the funeral expenses, and she was not aware of the life insurance benefits that Donna would receive.

[49] Donna’s statements that she was strapped for money at the time of her husband’s death were true at the moment of his death, however, ultimately, it was not accurate as the Estate did ultimately receive funds of approximately $15,000 for three months’ salary, plus the value of the pension plan, plus the value of the stocks which were unknown, and Donna was entitled to receive substantial life insurance benefits. The life insurance proceeds and the jointly owned home were transferred to Donna and were not part of the Estate. However, the Estate received at least $15,000 which was sufficient to pay for Mark’s funeral expenses.

[50] Donna did not deny that she had initially agreed to have her husband’s remains interred in the family plot in Lacolle, Québec. However, she acknowledged that she changed her mind after seeing the graveyard in Lacolle. While the agreement to have his ashes buried in Lacolle was made by her sister Laura, she was acting on Donna’s behalf to make the funeral arrangements. Donna was aware of the agreement for the burial arrangements because she asked that a place be arranged for her to be buried beside her husband’s ashes in Lacolle, Québec in return for having Mark’s ashes buried in Lacolle.

[51] Section 5 of the Estates Administration Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.22, states as follows:

“…the real and personal property of a deceased person comprised in a residuary devise or bequest, except so far as a contrary intention appears from the person’s will or any codicil thereto, is applicable rateably, according to their respective values, to the payment of his or her debts, funeral and testamentary expenses and the cost and expenses of administration.”

[52] It is not contested that the funeral and the testamentary expenses are debts of the Estate and the uncontested evidence is that the Estate received approximately $15,000 which was sufficient to pay the funeral expenses of $9,138.32.

[53] The essential ingredients of a legal and valid gift were set out by the Court of Appeal in McNamee v. McNamee, 2011 ONCA 533 at para. 24. There must be the following:

1. an intention to make a gift on the part of the donor without consideration or expectation of remuneration;
2. an acceptance of the gift by the donee; and
3. a sufficient act of deliverance or transfer of the property to complete the transaction.

[54] In this case, Nan paid the funeral Director for the balance of the funeral expenses and she also paid Laura for the amounts she had advanced for the funeral expenses. Nan did not state that the amount she was paying for the funeral expenses was a gift to the Estate. In fact, there is no evidence that Nan spoke to Donna and expressed her wish to make a gift to the Estate for the amount of the funeral expenses. In her affidavit, Nan states that she did not intend to make a gift to the Estate of the funeral expenses once she became aware that the Estate had sufficient assets and that Mark’s ashes would not be buried in Lacolle.

[55] I am not convinced on a balance of probabilities that Nan intended to make a gift to the Estate of the funeral expenses once the circumstances were known. I find that it is more likely that she was honouring her family’s obligations to the funeral Director in Lacolle, Québec, where the arrangements for the funeral were made by her family, in circumstance where she believed her son’s Estate did not have money to pay those expenses rather than making a gift.

[56] The second requirement for a valid gift is the acceptance of the gift by the donee. In this case, the Estate did not and could not accept the gift because an administrator was not appointed as the legal representative of Mark’s Estate until this decision was made.

[57] The third provision was satisfied as the funds were delivered to the funeral home Director without any terms being agreed upon between the Estate, Donna or Nan.

Disposition of Issue #4

[58] For the above reasons I find that Nan did not intend to make a gift of the funeral expenses of $9,138.00 to the Estate of Mark Catto and the Estate did not and could not accept the gift for the reasons given above.

[59] As a result, the respondent and the Estate of Mark Catto are ordered to pay Nan the amount of $9,138.00 that she paid for the funeral expenses.

Issue 5 – Should Mr. Chuck Catto be allowed to inspect the hockey card collection to identify which cards belong to him?

[60] Rule 32 of the Rules of Practice allows for the inspection of property and reads as follows:

R. 32.01(1), the Court may make an order for the inspection of real and personal property where it appears to be necessary for the proper administration of an issue, determination of an issue in a proceeding.

[61] Chuck Catto is Mark’s brother. In his affidavit he states that he started collecting hockey cards in 1977 and did so until 1992. Mark also collected hockey cards with his brother Roy since 1972.

[62] Chuck stated that he had possession of both his hockey cards and Mark’s hockey cards until January 2007 at which time he transferred the full collection to Mark to store them at his place as he was expecting twins. He explained that they did not have sufficient storage space and needed room to create a nursery. Chuck stated that he had prepared a handwritten list of the hockey cards that he had collected which he gave to Mark and he believes that this list should still be with the cards. He further stated that he was advised by Mark that he would create an inventory list of their collection on his computer. He believed that Donna was in possession of the list as well as his hockey cards.

[63] Donna acknowledges that she is in possession of a hockey card collection but does not have any knowledge that any of the cards belong to anyone other than her late husband.

[64] A three page list of the hockey cards was attached to the affidavit of Brenda Desjardins. However, the list does not identify which cards belonged to Mark and which cards belong to Chuck. The list is a typed list and is not the handwritten list of cards that identify the cards belonging to Chuck.

[65] Mark Fournier filed an affidavit stating that he was a friend of the applicants and was also one of Mark’s closest friends. He stated that both Mark and Chuck had a large hockey card collection which they had collected for over 20 years. He was also aware that Chuck had stored the hockey card collection for over 20 years, and that in January 2007, Chuck had asked Mark to hold the entire hockey card collection as Chuck needed space for a nursery.

Disposition of Issue #5

[66] I find that Chuck shall be entitled to inspect the hockey cards at a time and location to be agreed upon by the parties. I also find that, if the parties are unable to find the list identifying Chuck’s hockey cards, then applying the provisions of Rule 1.04(1) and (1.1), I order that the parties divide the hockey cards in a randomized manner as they may agree, and failing agreement to be determined by me, after receiving written submissions.

Estate Administration

[67] Finally if there is a further need for letters of administration and the appointment of an Estate trustee to administer the Estate, such appointment and proceeding shall be completed at the Superior Court in the county or district of Peterborough where the deceased had his fixed place of abode at the time of his death. Given the small value of the Estate and a single beneficiary who is entitled to be the Estate trustee, the filing of a bond is dispensed with.

Costs

[68] The parties may make written submissions within 15 days on the issue of costs.

Justice Robert J. Smith

Released: 2016/06/06