“All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players.” There is no doubt that being a Shakespearean actor can be difficult: the language is difficult to master, and the roles are old and based on ancient tradition. People expect you to get it right. Just like actors, executors of an estate have a role and lines to master, and going off script can lead to disastrous results.

In a recent Ontario case, Meuse v Taylor[1], the Court was tasked with reviewing the actions of an executor who sold the “Sanders Portrait,” a portrait of William Shakespeare painted during his lifetime valued at $50 Million.

The claimant in the case, Mr. Meuse, sought to have the executor, Mr. Taylor, removed for a laundry list of allegations of impropriety. The most interesting component of Mr. Meuse’s claim was that he believed he was uniquely qualified to realize the full value of the portrait and, therefore, that he would be a better executor. The claimant specifically disagreed with the expert hired by the executor and his method of selling the painting through an auction house, stating a private sale would be preferred.

In addressing the allegations, the judge stated that an application to remove an executor will not be decided like a beauty contest. An executor does not need expertise in all areas of the estate’s administration. An executor requiring and utilizing the assistance of outside experts is perfectly acceptable, and in fact applauded. An executor will not be faulted for recognizing their own limitations and seeking out professional assistance when they need it.

When acting as an executor, one must be aware of their many obligations, but that does not mean an executor must have specific expertise in the estate assets, experience in administering estates or even have a requisite level of training or education. Justice Gomery says that “what is important is that the testator had the confidence that the individual appointed will carry out the wishes expressed in their will”.

Ultimately, Mr. Meuse’s claim was dismissed as the Court found that the evidence offered to prove the allegations put forward by the claimant fell far short of establishing that the executor had acted improperly, or that any action they had taken had jeopardized the administration of the estate. 

Why are courts so protective of executors? This stems from the court’s desire to not interfere with the wishes of the testator. The deceased chose this person for a reason, whatever that reason may be, and as such it shouldn’t be interfered with lightly.

However, we have seen instances where the court has exercised its discretion to remove an executor. In Dewaele v Roobroeck, [2020] OJ No 5349, the daughter of the deceased successfully had her two co-executor brothers removed. The brothers’ conduct in that case included; refusing to allow both lawyers and accountants to use appraisals they had agreed on, and repeatedly denying their requests to take adequate steps. The court found that the brothers conduct created an impasse that would have been detrimental to the estate and its beneficiaries. 

The lesson to be learned from these two cases is simple: know your role and stick to it. We wouldn’t expect the actor playing Bottom to suddenly start reciting Macbeth’s lines (least of all because they appear in two separate plays!). Similarly, the Court does not expect an executor to be an expert in all things. Quite the opposite executors who step outside of or don’t commit enough to their role often end up being booed off stage.