Ontario Superior Court Summarily Denies Claim that Will Created Testamentary Trust Between Brothers

Why It Matters

The ruling clarifies how Ontario courts interpret plain‑language wills and sets a high bar for dependent claims, influencing estate‑planning strategies and litigation risk for executors and heirs.

Key Takeaways

• Court found will unambiguous, no testamentary trust created
• Brother not a trustee; breach of trust claim dismissed
• Plaintiff failed to meet dependent criteria under SLRA
• Loan of CAD 10,000 (~US $7,400) deemed debt, not support

Pulse Analysis

Ontario’s recent decision in Sherman v. Sherman underscores the judiciary’s strict adherence to the plain‑meaning rule when interpreting wills. The court emphasized that a holographic will’s explicit language—"solely and completely left" assets to the brother and a request to care for the other sibling—did not constitute a binding trust instruction. By refusing to invoke the arm‑chair rule, the judgment signals to estate planners that ambiguous drafting can lead to costly disputes, while clear, imperative wording can shield executors from unintended fiduciary obligations.

The case also sheds light on the narrow scope of dependent claims under Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act. To qualify, a claimant must demonstrate a legal duty of support at the time of death, which the court found lacking. Evidence of a CAD 10,000 loan (approximately US $7,400) and a modest CAD 200 transfer (about US $148) was deemed a debt repayment rather than ongoing support. This precedent will likely prompt beneficiaries to document support relationships more rigorously and may deter frivolous claims that rely on historical financial assistance.

For practitioners, the ruling highlights two practical takeaways: first, ensure wills use unequivocal, imperative language when intending to create trusts or impose duties; second, maintain clear records of any support or loan arrangements to satisfy the dependent test. As Canadian estate law continues to evolve, lawyers and trustees must balance testamentary freedom with the risk of litigation, recognizing that courts will prioritize the testator’s expressed intent over inferred obligations.