A recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision reinforced a simple but important rule: lawyers generally owe duties only to their clients – not to third parties who may be affected by their work. The case of Stingelin Estate v. Woods, 2026 ONCA 240 arose out of a family dispute over property, wills, and trusts. The case ultimately turned on whether a lawyer could be held liable to someone who was never their client.

Background:

In 1992, the deceased placed four residential properties in a trust, holding legal title for the benefit of her sister. The deceased herself had no beneficial interest in the properties.

In her 2004 will, the deceased attempted to restructure this arrangement by placing the properties into a new trust: to benefit her sister during her sister’s lifetime and, after her death, continue in a Henson trust for the sister’s disabled son.

When the deceased died in 2011, her son (the appellant), became the estate trustee of her estate. Despite the existing trust structure, he did not transfer the properties to the sister (his aunt).

In 2015, the sister retained the respondent lawyer to prepare her will. The appellant had limited involvement, attending only two meetings. These meetings were held in the context of the lawyer’s retainer for the sister, and the appellant was not the lawyer’s client.

The sister died in 2016. Her will divided her estate equally between her two sons and did not include the appellant or the deceased’s estate.

In 2017, the sister’s estate demanded that the properties be transferred in accordance with the trust. The appellant refused, leading to litigation. In 2019, the court confirmed that the 1992 trust remained valid, that the sister was the beneficial owner of the properties, and that deceased’s estate had no interest in them.

The appellant, in his capacity as estate trustee, commenced an action against the sister’s lawyer, alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of a duty of care arising from the two meetings in 2015 and 2016. He claimed that he relied on the lawyer’s statements and suffered losses when the trust assets were found to belong to the sister’s estate rather than forming part of a Henson trust.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action in its entirety.

On Appeal:

In unison with the lower court, the Court of Appeal rejected the appellant’s submissions. The court emphasized that summary judgment is appropriate where a trial would add no real value, and that even accepting the appellant’s version of events at its highest, the claim could not succeed.

The central issue was the absence of any duty of care. The lawyer had been retained by the appellant’s aunt, not the appellant. There was no solicitor-client relationship between the lawyer and the appellant. Nor was there any evidence that the lawyer undertook to act on the appellant’s behalf. While courts have recognized a narrow exception in will-drafting cases for intended beneficiaries, that exception did not apply here. The appellant was not a beneficiary under the will and was, in effect, a stranger to the solicitor-client relationship. The court declined to expand the law to impose a novel duty in these circumstances.

The appellant’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty also failed. There was no undertaking by the lawyer to act in his best interests, no discretionary power exercised over him, and no basis to displace the lawyer’s duty of undivided loyalty to her client. The necessary elements of a fiduciary relationship were simply not present.

The claim also failed on causation. Even if a duty had existed, the appellant’s losses did not flow from anything the lawyer did or said. Rather, they were the result of an earlier court ruling confirming that the trust remained valid and that the properties belonged beneficially to the aunt. The consequences complained of flowed from that judicial determination, not from the lawyer’s conduct.

Finally, the action was barred by the two-year limitation period. The Court found that the appellant knew, or ought to have reasonably known, of the material facts giving rise to a potential claim by March 2017, when the aunt’s estate demanded the transfer of the properties. However, the action was not commenced until August 2019, and by then it was out of time.

The decision reinforces that lawyers do not owe a duty to everyone who may be affected by their legal services. Absent a solicitor-client relationship or a narrow and well-established exception, no duty of care will arise. Even where a plaintiff alleges reliance, courts will closely scrutinize proximity, causation, and timing. Without those elements, a claim will not succeed.