Appeal court upholds estate trustee’s powers

Ontario’s Court of Appeal has refused to stay a lower court ruling that allows an estate trustee to sell two farm properties — originally gifted to a deceased man’s sons — to cover large tax liabilities now facing the estate.

In April, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued a decision in a complex estate case involving the interpretation of the will of William Archibald Stewart, who died in 1994. The key issue was whether the estate trustee had the authority to sell the properties, which were bequeathed to Stewart’s sons.

According to the decision, Stewart’s will provided for a life estate for his wife, with the farm properties to be sold to his sons for fixed prices set out in the will — $50,000 for one property and $90,000 for the other.

Complications arose because Stewart’s wife outlived him by more than 24 years. During that time, the value of the farm properties rose significantly, to $617,500 and $1.12 million respectively. After her death in 2018, the estate faced more than $600,000 in tax liabilities linked to the disposition of the properties. The Canada Revenue Agency placed a lien on the farms and threatened to seize and sell them to recover the taxes.

The estate trustee sought court approval to sell the properties to cover the debts, including the CRA’s tax claim. This was opposed by Stewart’s surviving son and his late brother’s widow, who argued that the sales would void the original gifts and that they should still be able to purchase the farms at the prices specified in the will.

The Superior Court sided with the trustee, ruling that she could sell the properties and was not bound to accept the original sale prices — which could have left her personally liable for the estate’s debts.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has now upheld that decision, rejecting a motion for a stay from the heirs.

According to the appeal court, the heirs want the trustee to avoid selling the properties outright and instead work out an arrangement that would allow them to retain the farms while the estate pays off its debts.

“It seems that [the heirs] believe they can best jockey for that outcome if the estate trustee remains in possession of the farms and they are in a position to exercise their options under the will,” the court noted. However, it found they failed to demonstrate grounds for a stay.

The court concluded that the heirs did not establish that they would suffer “irreparable harm” if the stay were not granted.

“The farms are not, on the facts, ‘unique.’ The issues appear to be all financial, leading to the conclusion that there is no irreparable harm,” the ruling stated.

The court also held that the “balance of convenience” favoured the estate trustee, who argued that a stay would increase the risk of CRA seizure and raise costs for the estate.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, concluding: “There is no serious question to be decided for which a stay is required; the ground of irreparable harm has not been established; and the balance of convenience favours the estate trustee’s position.”