*Today’s blog post was written by Iryna Huk, Articling Student at de VRIES LITIGATION LLP

---

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Di Nardo v. Nagy, 2025 ONCA 523 highlights the complexities of contested estate administration and the serious consequences trustees may face when they ignore court orders.

Background of the Dispute

The case arose out of the administration of the late Mr. Di Nardo’s estate. His daughter, Ms. Di Nardo, acted as estate trustee but failed to divide the estate equally between her two siblings. Despite a court order in 2017 requiring her to pass her accounts, she repeatedly failed to do so. This led to multiple contempt findings against her.

In 2021, she was sentenced to seven days in jail, of which she served three. Matters escalated in April 2023 when Justice Dietrich ordered her to serve an additional 30 days’ incarceration and issued a warrant of committal. Although the order was temporarily stayed pending resolution of related estate proceedings, the warrant itself remained outstanding and was never appealed.

Two years later, in April 2025, Justice Dietrich dismissed Ms. Di Nardo’s application to pass her accounts and ordered that her siblings be paid their equal shares of the estate. Costs were also awarded against her. She appealed this ruling, arguing that the dismissal of her application to pass accounts constituted a material change in circumstances, rendering the warrant of committal effectively spent. She requested that not only the judgment itself, but also the contempt orders, costs, and her personal liability be set aside.

The Key Issue on Appeal

The central question before the Court of Appeal was narrow but significant: should the 2023 contempt order and warrant of committal be stayed while Ms. Di Nardo pursued her appeal of the 2025 decision dismissing her accounts application?

The Court noted that under Rule 63.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the notice of appeal automatically stayed the payment and cost provisions of the April 2025 judgment. However, the April 2023 contempt order and warrant of committal were not under appeal. This meant the Court lacked jurisdiction under the Rules to stay or vary them.

Faced with this procedural gap, the Court turned to s. 134(2) of the Courts of Justice Act, which gives appellate courts broad authority to make interim orders to prevent prejudice while an appeal is pending. Drawing on the principles from Waxman v. Waxman 2003 CanLII 22440 (ON CA), [2003] O.J. No. 73 (C.A.), the Court explained that this provision can be utilized in circumstances where no specific remedy exists but where some form of intervention is needed. It ensures that if an appellant is successful, the appeal is not rendered meaningless because the subject matter has disappeared, or the litigation’s outcome has otherwise been undermined in the meantime. [1]

 

 

The Court applied the familiar three-part test from RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) 1995 CanLII 64 (SCC), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199:

1. Serious Question to be Tried – The appeal raised a legitimate issue about the effect of the April 2025 ruling on the earlier warrant.
2. Irreparable Harm – Enforcing the order risked rendering parts of her appeal meaningless.
3. Balance of Convenience – Enforcing the order prior to the Superior Court motion could cause unfair prejudice, thus tilting the scales in favour of a stay.

 

The Court granted a temporary stay of the 2023 committal order but limited its scope. The stay would remain in place only until November 19, 2025, when Ms. Di Nardo’s related motion in the Superior Court was scheduled to be heard. The door was left open for her to seek further relief after that date, depending on the outcome.

Key Takeaways

This decision illustrates the limits on appellate intervention when contempt orders and warrants of committal are not directly appealed. At the same time, it shows the Court’s willingness to use its broader powers under the Courts of Justice Act to prevent injustice in estate litigation.

For trustees, the message is clear – failing to comply with court orders can result in serious personal consequences, including jail time. More broadly, the case demonstrates the delicate balance courts must strike between enforcing compliance and ensuring that appeals are not rendered pointless before they are heard.

[1] Peel (Regional Municipality) v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada Ltd. (1990), 1990 CanLII 6956 (ON CA), 74 O.R. (2d) 161, at 163 (C.A.).