Ontario Court Slams Lawyer for Holding $150,000 in Estate Funds; Questions Law Society of Ontario’s Inaction
CASE: Hockney v. Kneeland, 2025 ONSC 1309
Mary Jane Hockney passed away in 2014, leaving her estate to be equally divided among her seven grandchildren. She appointed her lawyer, Mary Jane Kneeland, as the sole estate trustee, but over a decade later, approximately $150,000 of the estate remains undistributed. Despite repeated assurances, Kneeland failed to provide a proper accounting, blaming delays on lost files, tax issues, and personal circumstances. The beneficiaries filed multiple complaints with the Law Society of Ontario (LSO), which issued only a caution in 2018 and later obtained an undertaking from Kneeland in 2022 to complete the estate administration by mid-2023, an obligation she ignored. After Kneeland stopped responding entirely in 2022, the applicants initiated legal action in 2024, seeking a court order to force her to account for the missing funds. The court found Kneeland had deliberately evaded service and failed in her fiduciary duties, while also questioning the LSO’s lack of effective enforcement. The court ordered Kneeland to pass her accounts by April 30, 2025, warning of strict enforcement, and set deadlines for her response, with the potential for default judgment if she fails to comply.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ordered Mary Jane Kneeland to pass her accounts as estate trustee for the Estate of Mary Jane Hockney by April 30, 2025. The court found that Kneeland had failed to properly administer the estate for over a decade, holding $150,000 in undistributed funds without providing an accounting to the beneficiaries. The court validated service of the application and determined that Kneeland had deliberately evaded service.
Additionally, the court set strict deadlines for Kneeland to respond. She must file a Notice of Appearance by March 7, 2025 if she intends to participate in the proceeding. If she fails to do so, the applicants may proceed to seek default judgment without further notice. The court also reserved the issue of costs for the final resolution of the application.
The decision strongly criticized Kneeland’s conduct, emphasizing the breach of fiduciary duty, and questioned the Law Society of Ontario’s failure to enforce compliance, despite repeated complaints from the beneficiaries.
