CITATION: Ram v. Ram, 2026 ONSC 3245
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Stephanie Ram
AND:
Victor Ram and the Estate of Mahesh Ram
BEFORE: J.T. Akbarali J.
COUNSEL: Ayda Kay and Rebecca Betel, for the Applicant
Victor Ram, in person
No one appearing, for the Estate of Mahesh Ram
HEARD: June 2, 2026
ENDORSEMENT
Overview
1The applicant, Stephanie Ram, and the respondent, Victor Ram are the children of the deceased, Mahesh Ram, who died on January 26, 2025, leaving a will.
2Because the parties to this application share the same last name, for clarity, I respectfully use first names in this endorsement.
3Under Mahesh’s will, Stephanie is to receive two-thirds of his estate and Victor is to receive one-third. The estate is thought to consist principally of a property in which Stephanie currently resides.
4Mahesh named one of his brothers to be his estate trustee in his will, and another brother as an alternate. The brothers have both renounced. There is no further alternate estate trustee named.
5Victor brought an application for a certificate of appointment of estate trustee with a will. He filed a renunciation and consent to his application signed by Stephanie.
6Stephanie subsequently filed a Notice of Objection to Victor’s application. There is currently no one with authority to act on behalf of the estate.
7A week ago, Stephanie commenced an application for dependent’s support, and brought an urgent motion for interim dependent’s support and the appointment of an estate trustee during litigation (“ETDL”), naming the estate and Victor as respondents.
Process
8Before I address the merits of the motion, I must say a word about the process. All too often on the estates list, parties seek urgent relief and attend with motion materials that are not properly developed. The court is left to either do its best with an incomplete record or to adjourn the matter.
9The estates list is busy and growing busier. We cannot afford to devote time to motions that are not ready for adjudication. It is not fair to the other parties who are waiting for their court dates.
10In this case, the record reveals that on Wednesday May 27, 2026 at 12:26 p.m., Stephanie’s counsel served Victor by way of email to his gmail address with Stephanie’s Notice of Counter-Application and a Notice of Motion (not a motion record) for urgent relief. She advised that the court had told her there was availability for the motion to be heard virtually on June 2, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. She asked that he confirm by end of day on Thursday May 28, 2026 if the date worked for him.
11On Thursday May 28, 2026, at 12:13 p.m., Victor responded. He indicated that given the short timeline (heading into a weekend) and the seriousness of the relief requested, he was not in a position to properly prepare responding materials. He asked that the date be adjourned so that he would have “a fair opportunity to review the materials, obtain advice if necessary, and prepare proper responding materials.”
12Let me underscore that by this time, the motion record had not yet been served. No application record was served. Victor had only the Notice of Application and the Notice of Motion.
13On the same day at 12:21, Stephanie’s counsel advised that they did not agree that the motion should be “adjourned.” Of course, at this point, the motion had not been scheduled; there was nothing to “adjourn.” Victor, as a self-represented person, may have been confused about that, but counsel was not. Did counsel accede to Victor’s very reasonable request for more time, as a self-represented person, to prepare for the motion (for which he still had received no supporting evidence) which seeks serious relief, including a declaration that Stephanie is a dependent of the estate, and for interim dependent’s relief, and an ETDL, which would cause this modest estate to incur costs? No. Counsel indicated that “given the urgency,” they would be confirming the date. This was not appropriate behaviour. It is taking advantage of a self-represented litigant.
14Counsel then confirmed the motion, not alerting the court to the position Victor had taken. At 1:37 p.m. on the same day, after receiving the confirmation form, Victor indicated in an email to counsel that he maintained his request for an adjournment and his position that he required additional time to properly prepare responding materials as a self-represented party.
15Victor emailed counsel again on Friday May 29, 2026 at 10:29 a.m. indicating that he would proceed with the June 2, 2026 motion and would serve responding materials. By this time, Victor still had not received the affidavit in support of the motion.
16At 11:31 a.m. on Friday May 29, 2026, Stephanie’s motion record was served on Victor by email.
17On the same day, Victor swore an affidavit of about 2 ½ pages. He indicated in it that he would also rely on affidavits he filed in connection with his application to be appointed estate trustee. Nor surprisingly for a self-represented litigant who did not have adequate time to prepare, none of Victor’s affidavits really grapple with the key issues raised on the motion. Also not surprisingly, he did not file a factum.
18The estates list expects the parties to conduct themselves in accordance with the three C’s: cooperation, communication, and common sense. Here, Stephanie has not. She did not reasonably cooperate with Victor to develop a fair process towards the hearing of this motion on the merits. She did not communicate transparently with him about whether the motion was to be “adjourned” rather than scheduled. And the positions taken lack any common sense because they deprive Victor of a fair hearing and abuse the willingness of this court to hear urgent matters when required. The fact that Victor is self-represented aggravates the inappropriateness of this behaviour.
19I am now in the position the court loathes to be in. The parties have a real problem on their hands. Do I proceed to adjudicate it with an incomplete record? The court’s time has already been disrespected; there is no reclaiming it now. Or do I adjourn it of my own accord, when even Victor has agreed to proceed with the motion, to permit the appropriate development of the record?
20In the circumstances, I have decided to consider the questions on the merits of the motion to see what orders are warranted on this incomplete record in an effort to advance the parties’ dispute.
Interim Dependent’s Support
21Stephanie’s evidence is that Mahesh always supported her financially and emotionally. She lived with him before he died, and he paid her expenses and all the expenses of his house. Since his death she has continued to live in the house she shared with Mahesh, with no income beyond Ontario Works. She is 31 years old and has no savings. She cannot afford first and last month’s rent.
22Stephanie deposes that she has not maintained a steady income in her life. In 2025, she received social assistance payments of $3,658.47. In 2019, she earned employment income of $33,481.81, and in 2020, she earned employment income of $9,601.14, although her total 2020 income was apparently $28,904.14. She has not filed tax returns in several years.
23Stephanie received $25,000 in life insurance proceeds when Mahesh died, but about half was used to pay for his funeral and the other half has been spent on her day-to-day living expenses. She is not earning employment income now. The Ontario Works payments that she receives “are not enough to cover rent in Toronto on top of food and other necessities.”
24She has fallen behind on her own personal accounts. She sets out a list of debts she owes to telecommunications companies, credit card companies, and CRA, of over $4,200. She does not own any assets.
25Stephanie states the bills Mahesh used to pay are piling up. Hydro was already cut off once for non-payment. The property taxes are overdue and “in final notice before further action.”
26Stephanie deposes that she does not have access to the estate’s financial information. Of course, neither does Victor. Neither of them is the estate trustee, nor are either of them named as estate trustee in the will. While Stephanie complains that Victor has not taken steps to pay the Estate’s urgent bills, to put insurance in place, or to deal with the property tax arrears,” he cannot, unless he funds them personally. Stephanie, who it appears also has not attended to any of the house expenses personally despite living in the home, has objected to his application for a certificate of appointment of estate trustee.
27I note that Stephanie’s Notice of Objection indicates that she objects to the application on the basis of “forgery, unlawful trespass, coercion, surveillance, manipulation, and total exclusion by individuals with no legal authority of this estate.”
28The claim of forgery seems to be particularized as follows:
Later, the estate lawyer told me I “signed something with a witness.” [The court understands this to be the renunciation and consent.] Let me be clear: I never signed anything in front of the listed witness. That person – my brother’s wife’s mother – was never present. This is forgery, and it is the clearest legal ground for court intervention.”
29I note that Stephanie does not say that she did not sign the renunciation and consent. She states that the witness’s signature was a forgery.
30The other bases for Stephanie’s objection to Victor’s appointment can be summarized as follows:
a. The night Mahesh died, his keys, wallet and phone were taken from the house. The next day, “individuals [later identified in the Notice of Objection as Victor’s wife] who do not live in the home and had no legal right to enter, returned and trespassed.” They took all the documents and paperwork, “ransacked” the home, took valuables, Stephanie’s passport, Mahesh’s gold, and “who knows what else.”
b. Stephanie was manipulated into handing over her $25,000 life insurance cheque, forced to open a shared account, pressured into depositing the full amount, and encouraged to leave the entire cheque in there. (As I have noted, according to her evidence she apparently withdrew half for her needs and half went towards funeral expenses.)
c. Victor’s wife now “controls the estate.” (It is not clear how.)
d. When Stephanie lived with Victor and his wife, her google account was accessed daily and her files were auto-backed up and monitored without her consent. “Exactly nine days after I signed the trustee paperwork, they changed the locks and used a private video from my own account to justify kicking me out. That content was illegally obtained through surveillance – planned and timed to exclude [her] once they had what they wanted.” (Stephanie’s counsel confirms that this refers to Victor and his wife kicking Stephanie out of their home where she was living after she signed the renunciation and consent.)
e. Stephanie was the only person who Mahesh ever told about his safety deposit box. Although Victor’s wife claimed she had not gone through Mahesh’s paperwork, Victor mentioned his wife had found paperwork for the box. Their story about the box has changed, and now they claim if it existed, it would be empty. Stephanie believes the box was accessed and emptied without her knowledge or consent.
31I have concerns about the credibility and completeness of Stephanie’s evidence:
a. Although she deposes that she lived at the property with Mahesh “right up until [her] father’s death,” in her Notice of Objection, she refers to living at Victor’s home and being kicked out after she signed the trustee paperwork. Counsel concedes that the evidence in the record about where Stephanie was living at the time of Mahesh’s death is contradictory.
b. The fact that Stephanie references signing the trustee paperwork raises questions about her claims of forgery. It appears she did sign the renunciation and consent to which she later objected.
c. Victor’s evidence is that Stephanie lives in the house owned by the estate with a Jermaine Grandison. He is nowhere mentioned in Stephanie’s evidence. Is he living there? Is he contributing to the expenses of the home? Who is he? I am left to wonder.
d. Victor’s evidence also includes a letter from a lawyer he retained to Stephanie’s counsel raising concern about posts Stephanie made on X threatening Victor’s wife. The posts are unacceptable and display a level of anger and irrationality that make me question Stephanie’s motives and the credibility of her accusations against Victor and his wife. I do not have a sufficient evidentiary record before me to address these concerns.
e. There is no documentary evidence from Stephanie, like bank records, to support her claims that Mahesh was supporting her. Presumably, if Mahesh was paying all her expenses, her bank statements would show that she was not incurring expenses relating to the property, or for groceries, for example. They would show that she was not transferring funds to Mahesh for rent or to cover other expenses. There is only a bald assertion from her that she was living with him and he paid her bills, which contradicts her statement in her Notice of Objection that she was living with Victor and his wife.
32I am not satisfied on this record that Stephanie was receiving support from Mahesh at the time of his death or living with Mahesh at the time of his death. I am not satisfied that she is in an enumerated category of dependent for the purposes of Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act. In other words, while Stephanie is clearly a child of the deceased, I am not satisfied that Mahesh was providing her support or was under a legal obligation to provide support immediately before his death. I cannot reach that conclusion on the record that exists today.
33The motion for interim support also raises other questions. For example, Mahesh has left two-thirds of his estate to Stephanie. Is this not “adequate provision”? Stephanie argues it is not, because it does not respond to her urgent need for support. Counsel had no case law to support the contention that adequate provision includes making funds available for urgent needs after death, prior to the distribution of the estate.
34Mahesh died in January 2025, well over a year ago. Why is this matter urgent only now? If failure to provide for urgent needs is failure to make adequate support, what of the fact that apparently support is only now urgent? Counsel had no law to assist me in grappling with this question.
35I need not pronounce on the questions related to adequate support and urgency today. I merely highlight them as other issues that may have to be grappled with in connection with any adjudication of the question of dependent’s support.
36In conclusion on this issue, I am not prepared to make any award of interim support today. Stephanie has not discharged her burden of proof.
Appointment of an ETDL
37Stephanie says an ETDL is required because she and Victor “do not see eye to eye on the administration of the estate.” She does not explain what the discrepancy in their viewpoints is.
38Stephanie notes the number of estate bills that are going unpaid related to the property. I agree that there is evidence the estate is at risk. Property taxes have gone unpaid, and the property could proceed to a tax sale. I do not know if there is a mortgage; if there is one, it is probably in arrears. It seems likely that the house is currently uninsured.
39Stephanie seems to blame Victor for failing to pay the bills personally after she consented to his application for a certificate of appointment of estate trustee and then objected to it. At the same time, Stephanie does not explain her education level, what kind of work she has done, or why she cannot work now. She does not explain whether Jermaine Grandison is living with her, and whether he contributes or could contribute to the expenses of the home. She does not explain why she cannot pay any of the bills relating to the home in which she resides.
40Victor’s position is that an ETDL will erode the value of the estate. He does not have insight into full extent of the estate’s assets or debts; he cannot access the information. He believes the house needs to be sold. It appears that whatever liquid assets exist are modest, but no one knows for sure.
41Unless there are significant unknown assets, it appears Victor is right; the house needs to be sold.
42There is an obvious resolution to the parties’ problem, but they have made efforts at negotiating and have not been able to reach agreement.
43It is in this context that I am asked to appoint an ETDL.
44I am prepared to do so on the condition that the ETDL’s fees shall be borne by Stephanie, to be paid out of her share of Mahesh’s estate, subject to reallocation by the judge hearing the application on the merits. I make this order because, in my estimation, based on the record before me, Stephanie has been the stumbling block to dealing with the administration of the estate in an orderly fashion, not Victor. At the same time, I recognize that I have an incomplete evidentiary record before me, which is why a judge hearing the application on the merits ought to have the discretion to reallocate the responsibility for the fees of the ETDL.
45Stephanie proposes Nathaniel Bettle, who has consented to act. No one else has been proposed. Mr. Bettle’s rates are reasonable. I am prepared to appoint him on the usual terms, subject to the costs provision I outline above. Mr. Bettle should be empowered to gather up and sell the assets of the estate, including the property, as soon as feasible.
46Counsel shall send me a draft order for my signature, approved as to form and content by both parties. The order shall be sent by way of email to my assistant at Kristina.archer@ontario.ca by June 10, 2026. The email should include a copy of this endorsement.
47If, before the order is delivered, the parties reach a consent resolution on different terms that would be more efficient and economic for the estate, they may send me a consent order for signature reflecting the terms of that agreement.
Costs
48Lastly, there is the matter of costs. Stephanie seeks her substantial indemnity costs of $23,119.75 to be paid out of Victor’s share of the estate.
49I have already explained why the process by which this motion came before me for hearing was unfair to Victor’s interests. I am not prepared to grant any costs to Stephanie for this motion. She was not wholly successful, and her conduct in this motion warrants the sanction of this court. If Victor had incurred costs related to this motion, I would have awarded costs to him.
J.T. Akbarali J.
Date: June 3, 2026