This blog has been written by Frédéric Barriault, Counsel, and Yoni Feingold, Partner, at Fasken LLP

In Quebec’s civil law tradition, the liquidator occupies a central institutional role in the administration and litigation of successions. The legal framework governing this role draws principally from two sets of rules: the regime of liquidation of successions and the regime of administration of the property of others. Together, these systems create a coherent structure assigning the liquidator broad authority, strict obligations, and singular procedural status when disputes arise. Understanding how these components intersect is essential to any rigorous analysis of succession litigation in Quebec.

1.  Legal Foundations of the Liquidator’s Authority

The liquidator’s powers originate in articles 776 and following of the Civil Code of Québec (C.C.Q.), which define liquidation as a process comprising the identification of successors, the determination of the succession’s composition, the recovery of claims, the payment of debts and legacies by particular title, and the rendering of an account followed by the delivery of property. As part of this regime, the liquidator exercises the heirs’ seisin from the opening of the succession until the completion of liquidation. Seisin confers upon the liquidator exclusive control over the patrimony of the succession, preventing heirs from acting directly with respect to succession assets until the liquidation process is complete. Courts have repeatedly affirmed that heirs, despite holding rights from the moment of death, lack procedural capacity to act in place of the liquidator while liquidation remains underway.

The liquidator simultaneously acts as an administrator of the property of others pursuant to article 802 C.C.Q. As a “simple administrator,” the liquidator must preserve the property, act prudently and diligently, collect fruits and revenues, and remain impartial. Only when the testator expressly confers powers of “full administration” may the liquidator alienate property freely, invest without restriction, or make structural decisions affecting the succession without court authorization or the heirs’ consent. Even then, powers granted by testament cannot exempt the liquidator from duties essential to the liquidation of the succession, such as the obligation to prepare an inventory.

Where more than one liquidator is appointed, article 787 C.C.Q. imposes, unless otherwise provided under the testator’s will, a requirement that the liquidators act “de concert,” that is, unanimously. This unanimity requirement, which constitutes an exception to the usual rule of majority decision‑making in co‑administration, is a frequent source of litigation when co‑liquidators disagree regarding the conduct of the succession.  

2. Failures, Refusals, and Remedies Against the Liquidator

Given the exclusive authority of the liquidator to represent the succession, disputes often arise when heirs believe that the liquidator refuses or neglects to pursue a legal claim, protect the succession’s property, or respond to allegations of mismanagement. Heirs lack legal standing to act in the name of the succession, such that that the appropriate remedy is not to take the action themselves, but to seek the liquidator’s removal under article 791 C.C.Q. for his failure to act.

Removal is an exceptional measure and requires proof of one of the statutory grounds: unable to assume the responsibilities of his office, neglect of duties, or breach of obligations. Courts have emphasized that because the appointment of the liquidator reflects the testator’s intentions, removal should only be ordered when serious misconduct is demonstrated—such as misappropriation, significant conflicts of interest affecting administration, or sustained failure to carry out essential duties. Interpersonal conflict, mere disagreement, or dissatisfaction with the liquidator’s judgment does not justify removal.

A related, but distinct, remedy is the appointment of a provisional liquidator under articles 791 paragraph 2 and 792 C.C.Q. This measure is reserved for circumstances where immediate intervention is necessary to protect the succession, such as when an urgent matter requires representation, or when the liquidator’s continued involvement presents a risk of prejudice. Courts ordinarily require evidence of urgency, an appearance of right, serious prejudice, and a demonstration that the alternative of doing nothing poses greater inconvenience to the succession.

In rare cases, the court may authorize heirs or certain co‑liquidators to act temporarily on behalf of the succession when the administration is seriously obstructed, often by relying on articles 1333 and 1334 C.C.Q., which govern the functioning of multiple administrators.  

3. Multiplicity of Liquidators and Administrative Deadlock

Co‑liquidators frequently encounter difficulties arising from the unanimity requirement of article 787 C.C.Q. When one liquidator systematically refuses to cooperate, the administration may become paralyzed. Judicial intervention may then be necessary. The court may, under principles applicable to administrators of the property of others, authorize majority decision‑making, divide administrative functions, assign a casting vote to a single liquidator, or otherwise restructure the administration in order to prevent the succession from remaining in a state of impasse.

Liquidators may also act individually without judicial authorization in cases of urgency or where an action constitutes a “conservatory act,” such as preventing the prescription of a claim, maintaining insurance coverage, preserving perishable assets, or otherwise safeguarding the succession’s patrimony. These exceptions ensure that the succession’s integrity is not compromised by deadlock among liquidators.  

4. The Liquidator’s Role in Will‑Validity Litigation

When the validity of the will itself is contested, the liquidator— even if appointed under the disputed will—retains both the authority and the obligation to defend the will. Courts have held that this obligation flows from the liquidator’s mandate to implement the testator’s last expressed wishes. As such, the liquidator cannot challenge the validity of the will appointing them, even in a personal capacity as heir, without violating duties of loyalty and impartiality. Doing so may constitute grounds for removal.

Notably, during such litigation, the liquidator retains full administrative powers unless the court appoints a provisional liquidator. The pendency of a challenge does not in itself restrict the liquidator’s authority to pursue claims or manage succession property.

 Conclusion

The liquidator’s central role in Quebec succession law reflects a carefully structured legislative framework balancing administrative efficiency, the protection of heirs and creditors, and the preservation of the testator’s intentions. Whether addressing conflict among co‑liquidators, failures of administration, will challenges, or the allocation of legal costs, the law continually reaffirms the liquidator’s status as the primary actor through whom the succession interacts with the legal system. This position, simultaneously powerful and tightly regulated, ensures coherence and accountability in the complex field of succession litigation.