Wright v. Wright 2023 ONSC 6854

Case Summary

The applicant sought to remove his sister as co-estate trustee of their late father's estate and to order her to vacate the estate's residential property. The respondent had an option under the will to purchase the property at fair market value but refused to accept the appraised value or vacate the property, living there rent-free. The court found the respondent's option to purchase had expired and that she was in a conflict of interest that prevented the proper administration of the estate. The court removed the respondent as estate trustee, vested the estate assets in the applicant as sole trustee, and ordered the respondent to provide vacant possession of the property.

Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-23-00002088-00ES DATE: 2023-12-05

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO 7755 Hurontario Street, Brampton ON L6W 4T6

RE: Alexander Wright, Applicant AND: Elizabeth Wright, Respondent

BEFORE: Justice Kurz

COUNSEL: Laughlin Campbell, for the Applicant Email: ljc@oakville.law No one appearing for the Respondent

HEARD: November 28, 2023, by video conference

ENDORSEMENT

Introduction

[1] Alexander Wright (“Alexander”), one of two estate trustees of his father, the late Alfred Wright (“Alfred”), applies to remove his sister and co-estate trustee, Elizabeth Wright (“Elizabeth”) as an estate trustee[^1] of Alfred’s will (the “Will”). As the sole estate trustee, he intends to sell the main asset of the estate, the residential property known as 2707 Kingsberry Cres., Mississauga (the “Property) for the benefit of Alfred’s estate (the “Estate”).

[2] The Estate’s three beneficiaries are Alexander, Elizabeth and a third sibling, Harold Wright (“Harold”). All three are adults.

[3] Elizabeth currently occupies the Property rent-free. Under the Will, she was granted the option of purchasing the Property at fair market value, as determined by a process set out in the Will. That process has been followed but Elizabeth is not willing to purchase the Property at the price arrived at through the process, leaving the fate of the Property in limbo.

[4] This application has been adjourned on two previous cases at the behest of counsel acting for Elizabeth, Patricia Swiderski. On September 22, 2023, Mandhane J. granted an adjournment of this application to November 28, 2023. She did so on terms that included the requirement that Elizabeth or her counsel file a notice of appearance and any responding materials by October 27, 2023. Elizabeth was also required to pay costs of $1,500.

[5] Those terms were not honoured. Elizabeth never filed a notice of appearance or served a proper affidavit. That being said, an unsworn affidavit of Elizabeth and a factum, which were not served on Alexander’s counsel, were nonetheless uploaded to Caselines in advance of this hearing.

[6] Ms. Swiderski never attended the Zoom court hearing of this application on November 28, 2023. Instead, a “paralegal candidate” attended as her “agent” in order to seek yet another adjournment. He indicated that Ms. Swiderski mis-diarized the date and was unavailable because she was

Wright v. Wright 2023 ONSC 6854

Case Summary

Court File and Parties

ENDORSEMENT

Introduction

Judge

Counsel

Parties

Areas of Law

Fact Patterns

Financial Outcomes

Issues

Statutory Provisions 3

Legal Tests 2

Legislation 1