Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Determination of whether the deceased, Mr. Matossian, qualified as a spouse under the Wills, Estates and Succession Act (WESA) based on the nature and duration of his relationship with Ms. Clark.

• Assessment of the administrator’s conduct, including the improper withdrawal and use of estate funds for personal legal fees.

• Evaluation of the administrator’s failure to invest estate funds prudently and the resulting potential loss of interest to the estate.

• Consideration of whether the administrator’s actions constituted a want of honesty, lack of reasonable fidelity, or incapacity to perform fiduciary duties.

• Examination of the necessity and appropriateness of removing the administrator and appointing a new one for the proper administration of the estate.

• Review of the remedies sought, including production and passing of accounts, transfer of assets, and requests for injunctive relief.

Background and relationship of the parties

Sharon Patricia Clark died intestate (without a will) on December 29, 2020. Her brother, David Westall Clark, was granted letters of administration for her estate in June 2022. Dikran Matossian, who had maintained a 38-year relationship with Ms. Clark, brought a claim on May 18, 2021, asserting that he was her spouse under the Wills, Estates and Succession Act (WESA). After Mr. Matossian’s death in December 2022, Marcus von Albrecht was appointed executor of his estate and continued the claim on behalf of the Matossian Estate. The estate of Ms. Clark consisted primarily of the proceeds from the sale of her home (approximately $2,000,000) and other funds totaling about $1,000,000.

Legal proceedings and trial history

The central issue was whether Mr. Matossian was Ms. Clark’s spouse at the time of her death, which would entitle his estate to inherit under WESA. After a 13-day trial in July and August 2024, the court found that Ms. Clark and Mr. Matossian were in a committed, marriage-like relationship for at least two years before Ms. Clark’s death. As a result, the court determined that Mr. Matossian was indeed her spouse under s. 2(1)(b) of WESA, and the entire estate was to pass to the Matossian Estate.

Administrator’s conduct and subsequent application

Following this decision, issues arose regarding the conduct of David Westall Clark as administrator. He had made significant withdrawals from the estate’s account (about $300,000) to pay for his personal legal fees and failed to place estate funds in an interest-bearing account. Although Mr. Clark eventually repaid the withdrawn funds, the payment did not include interest, and there was little acknowledgment of the seriousness of his breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff sought Mr. Clark’s removal as administrator, arguing that his actions demonstrated a want of honesty, lack of reasonable fidelity, and incapacity to perform the duties required of an estate administrator.

Legal principles and court’s analysis

The court considered the relevant statutory provisions under the WESA and Trustee Act, as well as established legal principles regarding the removal of executors and trustees. The main consideration was the welfare of the beneficiaries and whether the administrator’s actions endangered the proper administration of the estate. The court found that Mr. Clark’s conduct, including the improper use of estate funds and failure to invest prudently, warranted his removal. The court also noted that Ms. Clark died intestate, so removal would not interfere with a testator’s choice of trustee.

Outcome and orders granted

The court granted the plaintiff’s application, removing David Westall Clark as administrator and appointing Marcus von Albrecht as the new administrator of the estate. The court ordered Mr. Clark to produce and pass accounts, prohibited him from further encumbering or disposing of estate assets, and required the transfer of all estate assets to the plaintiff in trust. The application for a Mareva injunction and preservation order was dismissed, but the plaintiff was given liberty to reapply if necessary. The issue of costs was deferred, with the parties instructed to attempt to agree; if not, a further hearing would be scheduled. No specific monetary damages or costs were awarded at this stage, and the total amount in favor of the successful party cannot be determined from this judgment.