Case comment: Thorne v Thorne, 2026 SKKB 40

The Saskatchewan decision in Thorne v Thorne, 2026 SKKB 40, considered when the Court will remove an administrator and appoint a replacement administrator.

Factual Background:

1. The Deceased died on March 25, 2018, leaving an estate that included farmland held as tenants in common with his sister, Gwen.​
2. The respondent, Keili, produced a document purporting to be the deceased’s will naming her as executor and sole beneficiary. Her siblings, Tanit and Brendan, challenged the will’s validity, and the Court of King’s Bench directed that the document be proved in solemn form.​
3. The parties later reached an out-of-court settlement in June 2022, which ended the need to pursue the will challenge to the expense and delay of a full trial. The parties agreed to a settlement on the below terms:

1. That Keili would apply for letters of administration in the estate;
2. That Tanit and Brendan would receive 20% of the net Canadian assets plus reimbursement of specified legal fees;
3. That Keili would receive the balance of the estate;
4. That Keili would provide an interim estate accounting within three months of the grant and provide Tanit and Brendan a quarterly estate accounting thereafter.​

4. Keili obtained letters of administration on April 12, 2023, but provided no meaningful information by the July 12, 2023 deadline and failed to provide the required quarterly accountings between September 2023 and May 2025.​
5. Gwen purchased the four farmland parcels in October 2024, with 20% of the gross proceeds held in trust for Tanit and Brendan pending satisfaction of trust conditions and a proper accounting.
6. Substantial rental income had also been generated and partially deposited to an estate account.​
7. On May 8, 2025, Keili delivered an incomplete accounting. Tanit and Brendan raised concerns that such accounting did not fully account for all farmland rental proceeds, all bank balances, and there were issues of missing probate‑fee funds, discrepancies in investment values, lack of proof of debt payments, missing legal invoices, and absent income tax filings;
8. As a result, Tanit and Brendan applied to remove her as administrator and to appoint their aunt, Peggy, as administrator de bonis non. Peggy was a non‑beneficiary, who had experience as a financial analyst.

Issue:

The Court identified and addressed four main issues:

1. Whether Tanit and Brendan had standing to seek removal of the administrator under s. 14.1 of The Administration of Estates Act (“AEA”);
2. Whether Keili’s actions justified her removal as administrator;
3. Whether the Court should appoint an alternate administrator (Peggy) under the AEA;
4. How costs of the application should be allocated.

Determination in Thorne v Thorne

1. Issue 1: Whether Tanit and Brendan had standing to seek removal of the administrator under s. 14.1 of The Administration of Estates Act:

The Court held that Tanit and Brendan had standing to bring the application. Under the settlement agreement they were beneficiaries entitled to 20% of the net Canadian estate and reimbursement of specified legal fees, and as children of the deceased they were plainly persons of sufficient interest within s. 14.1(1) of the AEA.

2. Issue 2: Whether Keili’s actions justified her removal as administrator

The Court held that it was appropriate to remove Keili.

The Court noted that s. 14.1(1) of the AEA permits removal where an administrator had failed to administer the estate in a reasonable and prudent manner.

Drawing on prior Saskatchewan decisions, the Court emphasized:

1. 1. There exists a high threshold for removal;
   2. However, the overriding duty is to ensure proper administration in the best interests of beneficiaries; and
   3. That acts or omissions that endanger estate property or reveal a lack of honesty, fidelity or capacity will justify removal.

The Court highlighted the statutory duty to render a “just and full” account within two years of the grant under s. 35(1) of the AEA. That baseline duty was supplemented in this case by the more demanding contractual obligations in the settlement agreement. Such agreement required an interim accounting within three months of the grant and quarterly updates thereafter.

Keili had failed to provide any meaningful accounting by July 12, 2023 and did not give quarterly accountings over a 20‑month period, even as major transactions – farmland rental and sale proceeds, payment of debts and fees – had occurred. When an “accounting” finally arrived on May 8, 2025, it was inadequate, omitting key flows such as rental proceeds, probate‑fee funds, investment values, and tax and legal‑fee information, and was unsupported by bank records, invoices or tax assessments.​

The Court was particularly troubled by Keili’s apparent failure to file an income tax return for the estate, noting that compliance with CRA requirements is essential to the orderly administration of estates. Non‑compliance with tax requirements could expose both the estate and beneficiaries to penalties and enforcement measures.

Against this backdrop of prolonged delay and a failure to account, the Court concluded that Keili had failed to administer the estate in a reasonable manner. The Court held that her removal was in the best interests of the beneficiaries. The Court noted that her conduct had compromised confidence in the administration and put beneficiaries’ interests at risk.

1. 3. Issue 3: Whether the Court should appoint an alternate administrator (Peggy) under the AEA

1. 1. Appointment of administrator de bonis non

The Court relied on ss. 14.1(3) and 17(1)(b) of the AEA to appoint an alternate administrator in the “special circumstances” created by the breakdown of the existing administration. Peggy swore that she understood the duties of an administrator, undertook to carry out a careful accounting from death to the present, and to act neutrally in implementing the settlement agreement.

The Court found it prudent to fill the role of administrator expeditiously with a neutral, non‑beneficiary administrator with appropriate financial experience. The Court dispensed with the need to obtain renunciations from persons with a prior or equal right to administration and ordered that Peggy be granted letters of administration de bonis non.

1. 4. Issue 4: How costs of the application should be allocated

On costs, the Court followed certain prior Saskatchewan decisions in which solicitor‑client costs were awarded with 50% borne personally by the removed executor and 50% by the estate.

In Thorne, the Court awarded the applicants a fixed amount of $6,000 in costs, allocating $3,000 as an expense of the estate and directing that the remaining $3,000 be paid out of Keili’s share of the estate.

Conclusion in Thorne

The Court ordered that Keili be removed as administrator of the estate, that Peggy be appointed as administrator de bonis non, that Keili provide a proper accounting compliant with Rule 16‑52 within 30 days, and that she deliver all estate assets in her hands to Peggy within the same period.

Thorne offers various lessons for practitioners. These include:

1. The importance of the duty to account:

1. Where a settlement agreement imposes more rigorous timelines or reporting requirements, those contractual duties will be enforced. Contraventions of accounting requirements may support removal of such an administrator;

2. Neutral, non‑beneficiary administrators may be a practical option to propose to a Court:

1. Practitioners acting for dissatisfied beneficiaries should consider identifying a suitable neutral candidate in advance. Ideally, such person would be someone with financial literacy and with no personal claim in the estate. Having such a candidate ready ensures that the Court has a ready alternative if removal is ordered.​