For the average person, the work of an estate trustee can be daunting. Depending on the complexity of the estate, it can be a full-time job unto itself, and it is not uncommon for an estate trustees to renounce their appointment. The case of Chieffallo v. Blair, 2025 ONSC 3411 dealt with an estate trustee who renounced their appointment, then sought to retract their renunciation.

Yvone Chieffallo’s Last Will and Testament appointed two of her children, Michael and Elisa, as joint estate trustees. A third child, Patrick, was named the alternate estate trustee.

Michael executed a renunciation of his right to apply for a certificate of appointment. Patrick then stepped into the role of estate trustee, acting jointly with Elisa. Within days, Michael sought to retract his renunciation, claiming that he was not aware of the contents of the will, was not given an opportunity to obtain legal advice, and was misled about the consequences of the renunciation. As it happens, the terms of the will were such that the estate trustees had the discretion to assign the residue of the estate among the children and grandchildren of the deceased as they deemed fit.

To support his argument, Michael relied on MacDonald v. MacIsaac and MacIsaac, 1983 Can LII 2835 (NS CA) as a persuasive authority. However, the Court distinguished the case at hand, pointing that in MacDonald the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal upheld the trial decision allowing an estate trustee to retract their renunciation as no actions or proceedings had been taken with respect to the estate administration since the original declaration, and no grant ot adminiration had passed the seal.

The Court also rejected Michael’s evidence that he was denied the opportunity to seek legal advice with respect to the renunciation and that he did not understand what he was signing. The Court found that Michael had had over two months to seek legal advice, review the will, and consider the implications of his decision. T

In the alternative, Michael raised the doctrine of intermeddling, that is, he had already begun administering the estate before executing the renunciation, such that he could not renounce his appointment. Generally, renunciation is not available when a party has already intermeddled in the estate.

In describing what implied acceptance of the role of estate trustee would look like, the Court looked to Dueck v. Chaplin, 2015 ONSC 4604, in which the applicants undertook “several meaningful actions in their capacity as Trustees”, which included applying for a certificate of appointment of estate trustee with a will, realizing the assets of the deceased, paying some expenses of the deceased, commencing the application for an order giving directions, delivering a notice to objector, and corresponding with other parties on behalf of the estate.

By contrast, while it was not disputed that Michael had taken steps such as paying a few bills, withdrawing money from some of the deceased’s accounts, and consolidating other accounts, Michael’s actions were characterized as steps to preserve the estate, rather than take on its administration. They do not amount to deemed implied acceptance of the role of estate trustee. Further, it was found that these were taken at the request of Elisa, the other estate trustee.

On finding that there was no grounds to allow Michael to retract his renunciation, nor that Michael had intermeddled in the estate, such that he could not renounce his appointment, Elisa and Patrick were confirmed as estate trustees.

Chieffallo v. Blair serves as a cautionary tale to potential estate trustees. There are no takebacks with a renunciation, unless in the narrowest of circumstances and for the most compelling cases. Anyone faced with the potential of acting as an estate trustee, therefore, should properly turn their mind to the responsibilities and demands of the role before deciding to renounce their appointment.