Can You Lose Your Inheritance for Trying to Remove an Executor? The Court Says: Not So Fast.

🆕 Quick Answer

A no-contest (in terrorem) clause can strip a beneficiary of their inheritance for challenging a will — but a recent appellate decision confirms that simply asking a court to remove an executor doesn't automatically trigger forfeiture. Courts must first ask whether the litigation was genuinely frivolous and vexatious, or a legitimate attempt to hold an executor accountable. In Ontario, section 37 of the Trustee Act already gives "any person interested in the estate" the right to apply for an executor's removal, and courts have shown they won't let a no-contest clause override their supervisory role over estate administration.

Imagine this.

Your parent dies and leaves you a substantial inheritance.

But there is a problem.

Your sibling—the person named as executor—is, in your view, doing a terrible job. The estate is not being administered. Accounts are not being provided. Court orders are allegedly being ignored. You are becoming increasingly concerned that the estate is going nowhere. (If any of this sounds familiar, see what Ontario beneficiaries are entitled to when an executor goes quiet.)

So you do what any sensible beneficiary might consider doing:

You ask the court to remove the executor.

Then comes the punch in the gut.

Your sibling points to a clause in the will saying, essentially:

If you bring litigation concerning my will, you lose your inheritance.

Now you have a rather unpleasant choice.

Fight for proper administration of the estate—or risk losing the inheritance you were trying to protect.

That was the dilemma confronting the courts in Franklin Estate (Re), 2026 NLCA 30.

And although the case arose in Newfoundland and Labrador, it raises an important question for Ontario estate planning and litigation: how far can a no-contest clause go before it starts interfering with the court's own job of supervising estates?

The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal's answer was essentially:

The beneficiary may have triggered the clause—but that does not automatically mean the beneficiary forfeits the inheritance.

There is another question the court must answer first.

Was the litigation frivolous and vexatious?

That distinction matters enormously.

The Family Feud Begins

The testator died on August 6, 2019.

His will named his three children as beneficiaries. One of those children—the respondent in the litigation—was appointed executor.

So far, nothing particularly unusual.

But after several years of estate administration, another child—the appellant—became unhappy with how the estate was being handled.

On August 15, 2024, she went to court seeking the removal of her sibling as executor.

Her allegations were serious.

She claimed that the executor had failed to properly administer the estate, had failed to provide adequate accounts, and had failed to comply with an interim accounting order. (These are exactly the kinds of duties Ontario law actually requires of an executor — and the points where personal liability starts.)

In other words, this was not a case of:

"I don't like my sibling."

It was, at least according to the allegations, a case of:

"The person who is supposed to be administering the estate isn't properly doing the job."

The court ultimately refused to remove the executor.

But the story did not end there.

The executor had another weapon.

The No-Contest Clause Appears

The will contained a classic type of no-contest, or in terrorem, clause.

In plain English:

Challenge the will—or certain matters relating to it—and you risk losing what the will gives you.

There was an important wrinkle in this particular clause.

It prohibited litigation concerning the provisions of the will, but expressly carved out proceedings seeking:

• judicial interpretation of the will; and

• directions from the court during the administration of the estate.

That is actually a fairly sensible distinction.

A testator may want to say:

"I don't want my beneficiaries fighting over my wishes."

But that cannot sensibly mean:

"I don't want anyone going to court even if the estate trustee is doing something improper."

Estate administration is, after all, subject to judicial supervision.

And that became the central issue.

The Executor Strikes Back

On November 27, 2024, the executor applied to enforce the no-contest clause.

The argument was straightforward:

You brought litigation challenging my appointment as executor. The will says that if you do that, you lose your inheritance. Therefore, you lose your inheritance.

The applications judge agreed.

The beneficiary's removal application had triggered the clause, the judge concluded, and she was therefore disentitled to her inheritance.

That is a devastating consequence.

The beneficiary had not necessarily challenged the validity of the will.

She had not necessarily alleged that the testator lacked capacity.

She had not necessarily claimed that the will was the product of undue influence.

She had gone to court because she believed the executor was not properly administering the estate.

Nevertheless, under the applications judge's approach, the price of doing so was forfeiture.

The beneficiary appealed.

And that is where things became considerably more interesting.

The Court of Appeal Says: Hold On

The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal agreed with one important part of the lower court's decision.

The beneficiary's application did trigger the wording of the no-contest clause.

Why?

Because the will specifically appointed the respondent as executor.

By asking the court to remove that person, the beneficiary was effectively asking the court to interfere with an express provision of the will.

And the clause's exceptions did not save her.

The Court of Appeal noted that the will permitted applications for directions concerning the administration of the estate.

So, theoretically, the beneficiary could have asked the court:

"Is the executor properly administering the estate? What directions should the executor follow?"

Instead, she asked:

"Remove the executor."

That distinction mattered.

But—and this is the crucial part—the fact that the clause was triggered did not end the analysis.

A No-Contest Clause Is Not a Licence to Silence Beneficiaries

The Court of Appeal pointed to the common-law principle that no-contest clauses may be enforced where the proceeding brought by the beneficiary is frivolous and vexatious.

That means the court cannot simply say:

"The will says you lose your inheritance if you litigate. You litigated. Therefore, you lose."

There must be a further inquiry.

Why did the beneficiary litigate?

Was the proceeding a genuine attempt to protect the estate?

Was there a legitimate complaint about the executor?

Was there evidence supporting the allegations?

Or was the proceeding merely harassment, obstruction or an attempt to extract money or leverage from the estate?

Those questions are critical.

Justice Glen L.C. Noel explained that the court must balance two competing interests: the testator's expressed intention to discourage litigation and the court's own supervisory role over estate administration.

The lower court had failed to perform that analysis.

And that was the legal error.

The Court of Appeal therefore set aside the decision and sent the matter back for a new hearing.

The issue to be decided:

Was the beneficiary's application to remove the executor frivolous and vexatious?

If it was not, the no-contest clause could not be enforced on the basis of that application.

That is a very different proposition from saying that the beneficiary automatically forfeited her inheritance merely because she went to court.

Franklin Estate (Re), 2026 NLCA 30

Why This Matters in Ontario

Now let's bring this home.

Ontario does not have a statute specifically codifying every aspect of the law surrounding no-contest clauses. Instead, Ontario courts have dealt with these provisions through the common law, including the in terrorem doctrine and principles concerning public policy.

One important Ontario decision is Budai v. Milton, 2014 ONSC 5541.

There, the will contained a provision that purported to prevent the beneficiary from challenging the will or the choice of executor.

The court found the provision to be an unenforceable in terrorem clause because it amounted to a bare forfeiture without a proper "gift over"—that is, without specifying where the forfeited property was supposed to go.

The underlying principle is important.

A will cannot necessarily say:

"If you do X, you get nothing."

and expect the court automatically to enforce the threat.

The law looks at the nature of the condition, what happens to the forfeited gift, and whether the provision offends established legal principles.

There is another important Ontario consideration.

A testator's choice of estate trustee is certainly significant—but it is not absolute.

Section 37 of Ontario's Trustee Act expressly gives the Superior Court of Justice the power to remove a personal representative. Even more importantly, subsection 37(3) provides that an application may be brought by "any person interested in the estate."

That means an Ontario beneficiary does not lose the right even to ask the court to consider removing an estate trustee simply because the testator preferred that particular person.

The court, of course, does not remove an estate trustee casually.

Ontario courts repeatedly emphasize that the deceased's choice should not be interfered with lightly, that there must be clear evidence supporting removal, and that the welfare of the beneficiaries and proper administration of the estate are central considerations. (If you're the executor on the receiving end of one of these applications, it's worth understanding where personal liability actually starts — and, in some cases, whether stepping aside through a renunciation is a cleaner path than fighting a removal application.)

So there are really two different questions:

Question 1: Can the beneficiary apply to remove the estate trustee?

Generally, yes.

Question 2: Will the court actually remove the estate trustee?

That is a much harder question.

And Franklin Estate adds an important third question:

If the will contains a no-contest clause, can merely bringing that application cause the beneficiary to lose the inheritance?

The answer may depend upon whether the proceeding was legitimate—or frivolous and vexatious.

The Difference Between "Wrong" and "Frivolous" Matters

This is where things get particularly interesting.

Suppose a beneficiary applies to remove an executor and loses.

Does that automatically mean the application was frivolous?

No.

Courts regularly hear legitimate cases in which one side ultimately loses.

A person can bring a perfectly legitimate application, present a serious legal argument, and simply fail to convince the judge.

That is very different from bringing a proceeding with no legitimate foundation.

Think of it this way.

Scenario One: The Legitimate Complaint

An executor refuses to provide meaningful estate accounts despite repeated requests.

The executor ignores court directions.

Estate assets appear to be disappearing.

The beneficiary brings an application seeking removal.

The court ultimately concludes that removal is unnecessary because the executor finally complies or because another remedy is appropriate.

The beneficiary lost.

But that does not necessarily make the application frivolous or vexatious.

Scenario Two: The Family Grudge Disguised as Litigation

The executor is properly administering the estate.

The accounts are in order.

There is no evidence of misconduct.

The beneficiary nevertheless brings repeated applications simply to harass a sibling, delay distribution and increase everyone's legal fees.

That is a very different animal.

The court may conclude that the proceeding was frivolous and vexatious.

And that is where a properly drafted no-contest clause may have real teeth.

The Big Lesson: Estate Planning Cannot Completely Shut the Courthouse Door

This is perhaps the most important takeaway from Franklin Estate.

A testator is generally entitled to say:

"I don't want my beneficiaries fighting over my estate."

And a carefully drafted no-contest clause can be a powerful deterrent.

But there is a fundamental limit.

The testator does not become the judge of whether the estate trustee is complying with the law.

That remains the court's job.

There is a reason Ontario's Trustee Act gives interested persons the ability to seek the removal of a personal representative.

There is also a reason courts have repeatedly stressed that estate trustees remain subject to judicial supervision.

The deceased's wishes matter enormously.

But once the deceased dies, the estate enters the legal system—and the courts retain their supervisory jurisdiction.

A no-contest clause cannot simply transform that jurisdiction into a forbidden zone.

And There Is a Drafting Lesson Here

For lawyers drafting Ontario wills, Franklin Estate is a useful reminder that the wording of a no-contest clause matters enormously.

A clause saying:

"Anyone who brings any litigation whatsoever loses everything"

is a very different proposition from a carefully drafted provision distinguishing between:

• challenges to the testator's dispositive wishes;

• applications for interpretation;

• applications for directions;

• legitimate proceedings concerning estate administration;

• statutory claims that cannot lawfully be excluded; and

• abusive or frivolous litigation.

Ontario courts have already demonstrated that they will scrutinize no-contest provisions rather than blindly enforce every threat appearing in a will. Budai v. Milton is a particularly useful Ontario illustration.

The drafting objective, therefore, should not simply be:

"Make it impossible for anyone to sue."

That is unlikely to work.

The better objective is:

"Discourage beneficiaries from launching meritless litigation while preserving the court's ability to supervise the estate and protect legitimate rights."

That is a much more defensible—and much more useful—estate-planning strategy.

The Bottom Line

The beneficiary in Franklin Estate may have stepped on the no-contest clause.

But the Court of Appeal essentially said:

Stepping on the clause is not necessarily the same thing as forfeiting the inheritance.

The court still had to ask why she brought the proceeding.

Was she abusing the court process?

Or was she genuinely trying to protect the estate?

That distinction—between legitimate litigation and frivolous litigation—is where the real battle lies.

And for Ontario families, executors and estate lawyers, there is a powerful lesson here:

A no-contest clause can discourage a beneficiary from picking a fight. It cannot necessarily prevent a beneficiary from asking a court to make sure the estate is being properly administered.

After all, the whole point of having an estate trustee is to administer the estate properly.

And the whole point of having a court is to step in when that does not happen.

If you're facing an executor who won't communicate or account, or you're an executor being threatened with a no-contest clause, book a free call to talk through your options.