The recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court regarding the Estate of McGary highlights the Court’s broad jurisdiction in supervising estates matters. In this case, the Deceased, Brian William McGarry, died in early 2024, survived by three children, including the Applicant, Sheetza McGarry. The main issue surrounds the validity of the Deceased’s will.
Although the 2016 will was apparently the Deceased’s last will, the Applicant expressed concern about the Deceased’s cognitive capacity since at least 2014, when an assessment concluded that he was “exhibiting signs of cognitive decline consistent with Alzheimer’s disease.” Around that same time, the Deceased retained the legal services of non-parties, Daniel Nassrallah and Georges Nassrallah, for a matter he was then involved in. After a falling out with his new lawyers, the Deceased was soon embroiled in a separate lawsuit against the Nassrallahs, who sued him for breach of contract and unpaid legal services.
Although the Deceased initially defended himself, he ultimately conceded the claim. Then, strangely, only three days later, the Deceased then made a new will – the 2016 will – naming the Nassrallahs as his joint executors. A few days after that, he then changed his life insurance policy from 2012 to designate each of Daniel and Georges Nassrallah as 45% beneficiaries, both described as “Lawyer/Friend.” After her father’s death, the Applicant found two prior wills – one from 2011 and another from 2012 – and was suspicious of the circumstances surrounding his 2016 will and concurrent changes to his life insurance policy.
However, the Application had several procedural irregularities, including that no Notice of Objection was yet filed by the Applicant with respect to the 2016 will. In response, the Nassrallahs argued that the Application should be dismissed. Nonetheless, Justice Smith rejected this argument, citing the Court’s “broad and inherent inquisitive jurisdiction” with respect to estates matters, especially cases with facts as “highly suspicious” as this one. The Court ultimately rejected the Nassrallah’s motion to dismiss the Application and appointed two lawyers to act as neutral ETDLs (Estate Trustees During Litigation) for the Estate until this matter is resolved.
McGarry could set a precedent for similar estates matters, in which an imperfect Application is ultimately forgiven by the Court, due the severity of suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of a new will or changing of a beneficiary designation.