ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
IN THE ESTATE OF WANDA OTOWSZYC, deceased.
Alexandra Witoslawski
Applicant/Estate Trustee
– and –
Pawel Podsiadly
Respondent/Objector
James Spiroff, for the Applicant/Estate Trustee
Pawel Podsiadly, acting in person
HEARD: April 16, 2026
horvat j.
REASONS FOR DECISION ON PASSING OF ACCOUNTS
1The estate trustee for the Estate of Wanda Otowszyc (the “Deceased”), Alexandra Witoslawski (the “Trustee”), brings this application to pass the accounts for the Estate for the period from June 12, 2019, to March 27, 2025 (the “Accounting Period”). The Trustee also seeks compensation for her role as estate trustee in the total amount of $13,271.35 (not including H.S.T.) to be paid out of the capital of the estate, and reimbursement for the legal costs of this passing of the accounts payable out of the capital of the estate to her in the amount of $46,254.01 (not including H.S.T.).
2Pawel Podsiadly (the “Objector”), one of the three beneficiaries of the Estate and the Trustee’s brother, has raised over 150 objections to the Estate’s accounts and has commenced at least three separate legal proceedings against the Estate and/or the Trustee. Unfortunately, the bulk of the Estate’s assets have been spent on legal fees to defend these proceedings, and on this passing of accounts application.
3For the reasons that follow, I do not accept any of the Objector’s objections and the accounts of the Estate are passed. The Trustee is awarded compensation in the amount of $13,271.35, subject to her paying interest to the Estate for funds that she pre-took from the Estate and eventually paid back to the Estate.
BACKGROUND
4The Deceased died on June 12, 2019, leaving a last will and testament executed on May 18, 2004 (hereinafter, the “Will”). The Will nominates the Trustee (solely) as trustee of the Estate. The beneficiaries of the Estate are the Trustee (32%), the Objector (36%), and their brother Jacek Podsiadly (32%). The three beneficiaries are the children of the Deceased. Jacek consents to the judgment sought by the Trustee in this application.
5The Will grants the Trustee the right to retain professional advisors in her discretion and to act upon the advice and opinions given without liability for losses that may be occasioned by reason of her doing so. The Trustee also has the broad discretion under the Will to invest the capital of the Estate, convert the property of the Estate into money, distribute the Estate in specie, and to make any distribution as the Trustee may deem to be in the best interests of the Estate as a whole. There are no specific bequests or legacies given under the Will. The entirety of the Estate remaining after payment of debts and taxes is to be distributed to the residual beneficiaries according to their percentages.
6There is a longstanding conflict between the Estate and the Trustee, on the one hand, and the Objector, on the other. The Objector commenced at least three different proceedings against the Estate and/or the Trustee related to the administration of the Estate. The litigation appears driven by the Objector’s belief that he is entitled to a larger share of the Estate than his siblings, despite the Deceased already bequeathing him a larger share.
7Since the death of the Deceased on June 12, 2019, the Objector commenced the following proceedings:
(a) A claim against the Estate (naming the Trustee in her capacity as trustee of the Estate as defendant) for damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00 relating to an alleged historical sexual assault perpetrated against the Objector by the Deceased when he was a child residing in Poland (the “2019 Action”). The 2019 Action was stayed by the Honourable Justice Aston on June 13, 2022, on the basis that the action lacked any evidentiary support. The stay has not been lifted.
(b) A claim against the Trustee personally for $150,000 in damages for alleged harassment relating to the same allegations made in the 2019 Action (the “2021 Action”). The 2021 Action was dismissed for being statute barred.
(c) A claim against the Trustee in her personal capacity as well as in her capacities as attorney for property and personal care of the Deceased and as trustee of the Estate (the “2023 Action”). The Objector seeks damages and alleges that the Deceased pledged her home to him during her lifetime, but that he was subsequently ejected from that home by the Deceased and his siblings following a heated family confrontation. The issues raised in the 2023 Action remain to be decided.
8On March 9, 2022, Carroccia J. released her costs decision in relation to motions brought by the Trustee in the 2021 Action and in a proceeding commenced in 2018 by the Objector against the Trustee where he sought copies of the Deceased’s will and powers of attorney (the “2018 Action”). The 2018 Action was commenced prior to the Deceased’s death. Both the 2021 Action and the 2018 Action were dismissed. Justice Carroccia ordered the Objector to pay $8,455.77 in costs to the Trustee and directed that payment be taken from the Objector’s share of the Estate.
9In late summer of 2024, the Trustee withdrew $24,200 from the Estate to pay the cost of repairing the roof on her home which was damaged because of a windstorm.
10On January 10, 2025, a motion made by the Objector in the 2023 Action resulted in Kalajdzic J. ordering that the Trustee bring an application to pass the accounts of the Estate within 90 days. In her endorsement, Kalajdzic J. stated:
This is at least the fourth litigation file in a long-running dispute between siblings. The plaintiff has filed hundreds of pages of documents in his motion record, seeking a wide variety of claims that are difficult to understand. At the core of the matter is that he wants his share of his late mother's estate. His sister, the defendant, is the estate trustee. She has not concluded the estate, in part because of the plaintiff's various lawsuits. She stated that she was waiting for him to file new evidence in response to the order of Gaston J. on June 30, 2022 (CV-19-84) staying the plaintiff's action for damages relating to a historical sexual assault allegedly committed by the deceased mother.
There is no need to wait any longer for the estate to be wound up. Many of the plaintiff's complaints -- that legal fees spent defending actions brought by Mr. Podsiadly are not estate expenses, that personal items of the deceased were improperly withheld from him, that payment of the residue is owed -- can be resolved in an application to pass accounts.
The court explained to the defendant that she has responsibilities as estate trustee to conclude the estate and distribute residue in accordance with the Last Will. She was encouraged to retain counsel on behalf of the estate to bring the necessary application.
This court orders that the estate trustee, Alexandra Witoslawki, shall bring an application to pass the accounts of the estate of the deceased, Wanda Otowszyc, within 90 days of this order.
The plaintiff will have costs of today's hearing in the amount of $380 representing the motion filing fee and cost of service. Whether those costs are to be paid out of the estate or to be paid personally by the defendant will be determined by the judge hearing the application to pass accounts.
The balance of the plaintiff's motion is adjourned to a case conference to be scheduled by the plaintiff once the application to pass accounts has been determined. January 10, 2025.
11On January 13, 2025, the Trustee repaid to the Estate the $24,200 that she withdrew to repair the roof on her home.
12On April 10, 2025, the Trustee issued her notice of application to pass accounts in accordance with the endorsement of Kalajdzic J. The application record contains professionally prepared accounts in compliance with r. 74.17(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, detailing all capital and revenue receipts, disbursements, and partial distributions since the date of death of the Deceased, along with the compensation claimed by the Trustee during the Accounting Period. The accounting records show that the Trustee initially paid many of the expenses of the Estate from her own personal funds and reimbursed herself from the Estate periodically.
13On May 13, 2025, the Objector and the lawyer for the Trustee met to provide the Objector with an opportunity to review and inspect the Trustee’s records in support of her accounts. Following the meeting, the Objector requested copies of numerous supporting vouchers, which were provided to him.
14On August 15, 2025, the Objector filed his Notice of Objection to Accounts (the “Objection”). The Objector raised over 150 objections to the accounts in addition to making a claim for at least a 50% share of the Estate and that the Deceased pledged her home to the Objector.
15At the close of the Accounting Period, the Estate had no original assets and cash on hand totalling $83,319.91. The Estate has a receivable in the amount of $2,500 in an unpaid costs order payable by the Objector. The Estate also has unknown and potentially significant liabilities in relation to the outstanding 2019 Action and 2023 Action. The Estate cannot be fully distributed to the beneficiaries until these liabilities have crystalized.
ANALYSIS
16The issues for determination are:
(a) Should the accounts of the Estate be passed for the Accounting Period?
(b) Is the Trustee entitled to receive compensation?
(c) Is the Trustee entitled to reimbursement for the legal fees associated with this passing of accounts application?
Issue #1: The Accounts of the Estate shall be passed for the Accounting Period
17The standard of care required of the Trustee is not perfection, but rather ordinary skill and diligence, or that of an individual of ordinary prudence in managing their own affairs along with the application of common sense: Fales v. Canada Permanent Trust Co., , [1977] 2 S.C.R. 302, at 315-316; Baran v. Cranston, 2022 ONSC 6636, at para. 14; Toller James Montague Cranston (Estate of), 2021 ONSC 1347, at para. 69.
18The Trustee has a duty “to keep proper books of account and to be ready at all times to account for the trust property that [he] is bound to administer”… [a] passing of accounts application “initiates a judicial ‘inquiry’ into the affairs of an estate”: Estates Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.21, s. 49(2), in conjunction with ss. 49(3) and (4); Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 74.17; Wall v. Shaw, 2018 ONCA 929, at paras. 23 and 47; Zimmerman v. McMichael, 2010 ONSC 2947, 103 O.R. (3d) 25, at para. 31.
19Section 23.1 of the Trustee Act permits the Trustee to pay an expense properly incurred on behalf of the Estate either directly from the trust property or pay the expense personally and then reimburse herself. The court, however, may “disallow the payment or recovery if it is of the opinion that the expense was not properly incurred in carrying out the trust.” The following non-exhaustive list of factors provides guidance for determining whether and expense is a proper one:
(a) The nature of the estate;
(b) The character of the services rendered or expense incurred;
(c) Whether the trustee was properly exercising the powers given to him or her when the expenses were incurred;
(d) Whether the services are contracted or expenses incurred in good faith and with reasonable judgment, whether with or without the advice of counsel;
(e) Whether the services or expenses are necessary to protect and to preserve the estate and to carry out the provisions of the will; and
(f) Whether the expenses are incurred prior to or after probate is granted: Irwin v. Ruberry, 2015 ONSC 1821, at para. 43; Toller James, at para. 71.
20Many of the objections raised by the Objector may be dismissed outright given that they are vague, irrelevant, based on pure speculation, do not specify the reason for the objection or the adjustment sought, or raise issues that fall outside the two-year limitation period: Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company v. Iaboni, 2017 ONSC 2515, at paras. 23-35, aff’d 2018 ONCA 48. For example, the Objector raises in the Notice of Objection that the Deceased’s home should have been renovated by the Trustee prior to the home being sold and that a law firm should not have been used to sell the home. The home, however, was sold by the Deceased prior to her death and predates the Accounting Period. Further, the Objector raises objections with respect to jewelry and an emergency fund, long after the limitation period has expired. The Objector also includes in his Objection that the Deceased pledged her home to him, that the Last Will does not provide him with adequate compensation, and that his share of the residue of the Estate should be increased to 50%. He provides no documentary support or other corroboration. The Objector also seeks to extend the Accounting Period to prior to the Deceased’s death. I do not accept that there is any basis in this case to consider matters in this application to pass accounts that are beyond the Accounting Period.
21The Objector’s other objections to the Estate’s accounts may be grouped into the following categories of transactions:
(a) Legal fees;
(b) Costs of memorializing the Deceased, including her funeral and burial in Poland;
(c) Costs of maintaining the Deceased’s and the Deceased’s brother’s graves in Poland; and
(d) Miscellaneous items.
22The Objector also objects to the Trustee compensation sought. The objections related to Trustee compensation and the Trustee borrowing funds from the Estate will be considered under the next issue heading. The other four categories of objections are considered below.
(a) Legal Fees
23Most of the Estate’s money has been spent on legal fees in defending against the 2019 Action, 2021 Action, and 2023 Action. The legal fees exceed $75,000.00 during the Accounting Period. The Objector argues that the legal fees should not be paid by the Estate and challenges the quantum of the legal fees.
24The Court of Appeal in Brown v. Rigsby, 2016 ONCA 521, summarized an estate trustee’s ability to recover legal costs from the estate, subject to the discretion of the court, at paras. 11-14:
(a) an estate trustee is entitled to indemnification from the estate for all reasonably incurred legal costs;
(b) if an estate trustee acts unreasonably or in his or her own self-interest, he or she is not entitled to indemnification from the estate; and
(c) if an estate trustee recovers a portion of his or her costs from another person or party, he or she is entitled to indemnification from the estate for the remaining reasonably incurred costs.
25The accounts of the lawyers who provided legal services in defending the proceedings brought by the Objector have been produced by the Trustee. The accounts relating to proceedings that remain active or are ongoing are produced in a redacted form to protect privilege.
26The Trustee took steps to assess the account of the lawyer who represented the Estate in the 2019 Action, resulting in a discount of over $3,000 from the original account. These fees have been assessed for fairness and reasonableness, and I accept the accounts of the previous lawyer in the 2019 Action as proper expenses of the Estate.
27Having reviewed the pleadings in the 2019 Action, 2021 Action and 2023 Action, I reject the Objector’s argument that the legal fees associated with the 2021 Action and the 2023 Action are not expenses of the Estate and should be paid by the Trustee personally. Each of the proceedings commenced by the Objector are linked and relate to the same allegations. For example, the allegations made in the 2021 Action are based on the same set of facts as plead in the 2019 Action, specifically, that the Objector was “subjected to assault and harassment by [the Trustee] in the past during family confrontation related to sexual assaults committed by [the Deceased] and his brother Jacek Podsiadly.” Although the Estate is not explicitly named as a party in the 2021 Action or the 2023 Action, the substance and subject matter of the issues raised by the Objector in each proceeding relates directly to either the Estate or the Trustee’s role in the administration of the Estate, or both.
28The Objector also raises many of the same issues he raised in the 2023 Action in the Objection. For example, in the 2023 Action, he alleges: “the [Trustee] up to date has not fulfilled [her] fiduciary obligations with respect to the Estate and when requested have not provided date to settle or any reasons for delay.” The allegations in the 2023 Action are what led to Kalajdzic J. ordering the Trustee to bring this application to pass the accounts of the Estate.
29In my view, each of the legal proceedings relate to the Deceased, the Estate, or the Trustee’s role in administering the Estate or managing the property of the Deceased. Having reviewed the accounts, I find that they are fair and reasonable given the nature of the allegations made and the litigation history between the parties. The Trustee has always acted reasonably in defending the litigation brought by the Objector. The Trustee is entitled to indemnification from the Estate for all reasonably incurred legal costs.
30The Trustee also retained a Polish lawyer to provide a legal opinion confirming that, under Polish law, the limitation period applicable to the Objector’s claims in the 2019 Action expired before its commencement. The account of the Polish lawyer was for a total of $425.76. This opinion was obtained in good faith and relates to the 2019 Action. The costs of the Polish lawyer are properly those of the Estate.
31The legal fees paid by the Estate in the 2019 Action, 2021 Action, and the 2023 Action, including the account of the Polish lawyer, are all proper expenses of the Estate and the Trustee is entitled to full indemnification.
(b) Memorializing the Deceased
32With respect to memorializing the Deceased, the Objector argues that the cost of the wake for the Deceased, which was held in Woodstock, was too high “by Polish standards” and he argues that alternative choices with more reasonable costs were available. I do not accept that any of the expenses incurred to memorialize the Deceased in Woodstock were unreasonable. While it may always be argued that less expensive alternatives exist, in this case, there was nothing unreasonable about the expenses or steps taken by the Trustee to celebrate the life of the Deceased.
33The Objector also argues that the Trustee travelled to Poland for an “Estate paid vacation” and challenges each of the expenses of the Trustee. The Trustee travelled to Poland by herself for the Deceased’s burial and funeral. She also took care of various Estate related tasks while there. Although the Trustee stayed in Poland longer than was required to complete the burial and Estate related tasks, the Trustee does not seek reimbursement for the expenses that she incurred during those days. She only seeks reimbursement for those expenses related to Estate administration activities.
34The Objector challenges nearly all the expenses related to the trip to Poland on the basis that less expensive alternatives were available to the Trustee. For example, the Objector argues that the Trustee should have taken public transportation instead of a rental car and that she should have stayed at a Nun’s monastery instead of at a hotel. There will always exist an argument that a trustee could have found a cheaper alternative to some expense. That is not the test.
35The expenses incurred to memorialize the Deceased need only be reasonable having regard to the deceased’s station in life and other circumstances, including cultural and religious beliefs, traditions and practices. The consent of beneficiaries for an estate to incur costs to memorialize a deceased is not required: Toller James, at paras. 70-77.
36The Trustee produced supporting vouchers and clear explanations for each expense related to memorializing the Deceased in her Reply to Notice of Objection to Accounts and Supplementary Reply, including all records, receipts, and invoices. The Trustee ought to be reimbursed for her flights to and from Poland, her very modest accommodation expenses, and her daily incidentals for those days spent on Estate business.
37In this case, I am satisfied that the Trustee acted, and all expenses were incurred, in good faith when organizing the funeral and the burial of the Deceased in her native Poland. The Trustee relied upon instructions given to her by the Deceased by way of a “wishes letter” and other communications. The Trustee’s travel expenses to Poland were incurred in good faith and are reasonable in the circumstances, including attending at the Deceased’s brother’s grave while in Poland. The Trustee did not seek reimbursement for the entire time that she was in Poland. She only sought reimbursement for the expenses for those days that were spent administering the Estate, being ten days of the total twenty-four of the trip. The expenses the Trustee does seek reimbursement for are reasonable in all the circumstances of this case.
(c) Grave Maintenance
38The Objector also raises concerns about the amount of money spent on grave lease and maintenance fees for the graves of the Deceased and her late brother in Poland. Before her death, the Deceased paid the grave lease fees to preserve her plot as well as maintaining the grave of her brother. As part of her “wishes letter”, the Deceased allocated $10,000 for use for maintaining her and her family’s graves.
39The fees are approximately $65 annually per grave. These fees are modest, appropriate, fair, and reasonable expenses of the Estate, particularly given that they carry out the Deceased’s wishes. I reject the Objector’s challenge of the grave maintenance expenses.
(d) Miscellaneous
40The Objector also objected to a number of small monetary transactions usual to estate administration, such as the cost of a courier to send the Deceased’s clothing to the Deceased’s relatives in Poland, costs associated with printing (both paper and printer ink), cost of faxing counsel, postage, photocopying costs, long distance telephone calls, and bank fees, among other items.
41The Trustee has produced supporting vouchers or a clear explanation for each of the Objector’s objections. I have reviewed the objections filed and the response by the Trustee. These miscellaneous expenses are reasonable and proper expenses of the Estate, incurred and paid in good faith and in the regular course of the administration of the Estate.
42The Trustee has met the standard of care required of her. The Estate’s accounts are accurate, comply with the formal requirements of the Rules, and vouchers have been produced in support of every single item for which an objection has been specified. I find that the Estate’s accounting is in order and the passing of accounts for the Accounting Period is approved.
Issue #2: The Trustee is entitled to receive compensation
43An estate trustee is entitled to fair and reasonable compensation “for the care, pains and trouble, and the time expended in and about the estate, as may be allowed by a judge of the Superior Court of Justice”: s. 61(1) of the Trustee Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.23. In Laing Estate v. Hines (1998), , 41 O.R. (3d) 571 (C.A.), the Court of Appeal adopted the two-step process for determining estate trustee compensation outlined in Re. Jeffrey Estate, (1990), 39 E.T.R. 173 (Ont. Surr. Ct.).
44First, the amount of compensation derived from the tariff guidelines, referred to as the “tariff analysis” is determined: compensation based on 2.5% of the categories of capital receipts, capital disbursements, revenue receipts, and revenue disbursements. Further, in appropriate cases, a management fee of 2/5 of 1% per annum on the gross value of the estate. Second, that amount must be assessed as “fair and reasonable” against the following factors:
(a) the size of the trust or the value of the Estate;
(b) the care and responsibility involved;
(c) the time occupied in performing its duties;
(d) the skill and ability displayed; and
(e) the success which has attended its administration: Toronto General Trusts v. Central Ontario Railway (1905), 6 O.W.R. 350 (Ont. Wkly. C.) at p. 354; Re. Jeffrey Estate.
45The Trustee seeks total compensation of $13,271.35, made up of (i) “tariff” compensation of $10,388.04 calculated based on 2.5% of capital and income receipts and disbursements, and (ii) care and management fee of $2,883.31, calculated based on 2/5 of one percent of the average annual gross value of the Estate under her administration during the Accounting Period. The Trustee does not seek compensation on those transactions that the Trustee reimbursed herself or repaid the Estate, or on investment receipts or disbursements or transfers between the Estate’s bank accounts. The care and management fee is largely sought to compensate for the extra time that the Trustee was required to spend dealing with lawyers and defending the various proceedings brought by the Objector.
46The Estate was a relatively simple one which has become complex because of the conflict between the Trustee and the Objector and because of the various legal proceedings commenced by the Objector against the Estate and against the Trustee. As a result, the administration of the Estate has required much more time and effort than should have been necessary. Applying the five factors, the amount sought by the Trustee is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this case given that:
(a) at the time of the Deceased’s death on June 12, 2019, the value of the Estate was $220,186.03, of which approximately $83,319.91 remains on hand. The majority of disbursements from the Estate to date have related to payment of funeral costs and legal fees;
(b) the Trustee was responsible for memorializing the Deceased, including travel to Poland for her burial and implementing the Deceased’s wishes, regular Estate administration activities, and engaging with lawyers to prepare for and defend the various proceedings commenced by the Objector;
(c) considerable time has been spent by the Trustee on her Estate related responsibilities, including defending the proceedings commenced by the Objector;
(d) the Trustee has displayed significant organizational skill and ability in maintaining vouchers and supporting documents during the Accounting Period, and in engaging with lawyers to respond to the proceedings commenced by the Objector;
(e) in completing her duties, the Trustee has defended the integrity of the Deceased, implemented in good faith the express wishes of the Deceased and protected herself and the Estate from the legal proceedings commenced by the Objector; and
(f) but for the legal proceedings commenced by the Objector, the administration of the Estate would have been completed and the residue of the Estate distributed to the beneficiaries, leading to a successful administration. By the conclusion of the Accounting Period, the Estate successfully stayed the 2019 Action and defended against the Objector’s other proceedings. Apart from the outstanding legal proceedings, the Estate is ready to be distributed.
47The Trustee is entitled to fair and reasonable compensation for the care, pains and trouble, and the time that she expended in and about the Estate in the total amount of $13,271.35.
48One issue that remains to be considered is the Trustee’s pre-taking of compensation and/or her distribution from the Estate. In both the Estate accounts and the Reply to Notice of Objection to Accounts, the Trustee was forthright about borrowing money from the Estate to fund the cost of emergency repairs to her roof in late summer 2024. The funds were repaid by the Trustee to the Estate in January 2025. The Estate was without the $24,200 for approximately four months.
49While the pre-taking of compensation by an estate trustee may be common, it is generally only permitted in the following situations: “(i) upon agreement of all persons with a vested or contingent interest (if they are sui juris), (ii) where approved by the court, or (iii) where the will so provides.”: Wall, at para. 43. Outside of these three circumstances, the estate trustee risks liability for breach of trust, and on a passing of accounts risks reducing the amount of compensation they receive and an order requiring repayment to the Estate: Wall, at paras. 43-44, citing Ian M. Hull & Suzana Popovic-Montag, Macdonell, Sheard and Hull on Probate Practice, 5th ed. (Toronto: Thomson Reuters, 2016), at p. 568; McDougall Estate, Re., 2011 ONSC 4189, at paras. 52 and 54.
50In my view, it was improper for the Trustee to pre-take funds from the Estate to fix her roof. While she has already repaid the funds to the Estate, the Estate was without these funds for approximately four months. In these circumstances, the Trustee must pay to the Estate the interest that the Estate could otherwise have earned on these funds: McDougall Estate, at para. 54; Re. Goldlust Estate, [1991] O.J. No. 1840 (Gen. Div.).
51In these circumstances, I order the Trustee to pay to the Estate interest at the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, pre-judgment interest rate for the period that the Estate was without the funds that she withdrew to pay the cost of her roof repairs. The materials before me do not clearly identify the date on which the Trustee withdrew the $24,200 from the Estate. If a case conference is required to settle the amount of interest payable, one may be requested before me through the Trial Co-ordinator’s Office.
Issue #3: The Trustee is entitled to be reimbursed for the legal fees associated with this Passing of Accounts Application
52A lawyer retained by an estate trustee is the lawyer for the trustee and not the estate, and the estate trustee is personally liable to the lawyer for their fees. Whether or not those fees should be indemnified or reimbursed may be determined on a passing of accounts application. Generally, the estate trustee and any beneficiary properly attending and represented by a lawyer on a passing of accounts is awarded full compensation for their legal expenses: Bott Estate v. Macaulay (2005), , 76 O.R. (3d) 422, at para. 20; DeLorenzo v. Beresh, 2010 ONSC 5655, at paras. 15 and 23; McDougall Estate, at para. 62.
53It was not unreasonable for the Trustee to seek legal advice and retain a lawyer to assist her with this passing of accounts application, especially considering the litigation history between her and the Objector. The Trustee at all times acted in good faith and attempted to fulfill the intentions of the Deceased. She is entitled, in my view, to be reimbursed for the legal fees incurred by her following the January 10, 2025, endorsement of Kalajdzic J. which ordered her to commence this application.
54Given the meticulous records that were kept by the Trustee, this should have been a smooth and easy settling of accounts. The Objector requested and was given the opportunity to review all vouchers and supporting documentation that he wished. This process, and this proceeding, was only prolonged because of the Objector’s continued objection to nearly anything that the Trustee put forward. The legal fees incurred by the Trustee on this application are fair and reasonable in these circumstances and I order that the costs of this passing of accounts application are payable out of the Estate to the Trustee in the amount of $52,210.88, inclusive of H.S.T.
$380 Filing Fee
55In the endorsement of January 10, 2025, Kalajdzic J. awarded the Objector his costs in the amount of $380 representing the motion filing fee and cost of service. Justice Kalajdzic left to this application the determination of whether that amount should be paid personally by the Trustee or by the Estate.
56Considering that I have found that the Trustee acted reasonably and in good faith at all times during the administration of the Estate, I have no basis to award these costs to be payable by the Trustee personally. In these circumstances, the $380 shall be payable by the Estate to the Objector.
CONCLUSION
57For these reasons, the following orders are made:
(a) The Estate accounts for the period from June 12, 2019, to March 27, 2025, are hereby passed, subject to the interest to be paid to the Estate by the Trustee.
(b) The Trustee shall be paid as fair and reasonable compensation for services as Trustee of the Estate and for disbursements expended in administering the affairs of the estate during the period in the total amount of $13,271.35 (not including H.S.T.) to be paid out of the capital of the Estate.
(c) The accounts show that there remain in the Trustee’s hands no original assets.
(d) The costs of this passing of accounts application are allowed and payable out of the capital of the Estate to the Trustee in the amount of $46,254.01 plus H.S.T. of $5,956.87, for a total of $52,210.88.
(e) The Estate shall pay to the Objector his costs of $380 in accordance with the endorsement of the Honourable Justice Kalajdzic made on January 10, 2025.
58The question remains should any of the costs payable of this passing of accounts application be payable by the Objector to the Estate. The Trustee may deliver submissions in writing of no more than four pages (double-spaced and in 12-point font) on this point within 30 days of today’s date. The Objector may respond on the same terms 30 days following the receipt of the Trustee’s written submissions.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Jacqueline Horvat
Justice
Released: May 06, 2026