When someone passes away, disputes can arise over the family home, particularly where one beneficiary continues living in the property while the Estate Trustee seeks to sell it.
But does being a beneficiary give someone the right to remain in an Estate property?
In the recent decision of The Estate of Sean Craddock et al. v. Daviau, 2026 ONSC 4881, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered this very question.
The Dispute
Sean Craddock passed away in 2022, leaving his Estate to his three children. The Estate’s primary asset was a residential property in Ottawa.
Following his father’s death, Jacob Daviau moved into the property with the Estate Trustee’s permission. However, the Will did not specifically leave the property to Jacob or grant him a right to continue living there.
The Estate Trustee offered the beneficiaries an opportunity to purchase the property at fair market value. When no purchase was completed, the property was to be sold, and the occupants were required to leave by August 1, 2024.
Jacob refused to vacate, prompting the Estate Trustee to seek a court order.
The Court’s Decision
The Court confirmed that being a beneficiary does not automatically entitle someone to occupy a particular Estate property.
Although Jacob argued that his father had wanted the home to remain in the family, the Court relied on Robinson Estate v. Robinson, 2011 ONCA 493, emphasizing that a deceased person’s testamentary intentions must be determined from the terms of the Will.
The Court also found that the Estate Trustee had acted reasonably by obtaining an appraisal, allowing the beneficiaries an opportunity to purchase the property and proceeding with a sale to complete the Estate administration. Jacob was ordered to vacate within 60 days.
The Financial Consequences
The Court also ordered Jacob to pay occupation rent of $2,900 per month, beginning August 1, 2024, until he vacated the property.
Additionally, he was required to reimburse the Estate $8,275.32 in utility expenses. However, the Court declined to make him responsible for property taxes and insurance, which were considered ordinary property ownership expenses.
The decision demonstrates that refusing to vacate Estate property can have significant financial consequences.
Key Takeaway
Estate of Craddock v. Daviau reinforces an important distinction in Ontario Estate law: a right to inherit from an Estate does not necessarily mean a right to occupy or own a specific Estate asset.
Where a Will does not provide a beneficiary with the right to remain in a property, an Estate Trustee may be entitled to require vacant possession to facilitate a sale and properly administer the Estate.
Beneficiaries who remain in Estate property without an ongoing right to occupy it may also face claims for occupation rent and related expenses.
Understanding these rights and obligations early can help Estate Trustees and beneficiaries avoid unnecessary disputes and costly litigation. For further information or assistance with Estate litigation, please contact Nadine Esaid, Associate Lawyer at Boardwalk Law, at [email protected] or 365.747.3614.
Frequently Asked Questions
Not automatically. The court confirmed that being a beneficiary does not automatically entitle someone to occupy a particular estate property. Where a will does not give a beneficiary the right to remain in a property, the estate trustee may be entitled to require vacant possession so the property can be sold and the estate properly administered.
In Estate of Craddock v. Daviau, the court relied on Robinson Estate v. Robinson, 2011 ONCA 493. That decision says a deceased person’s testamentary intentions must be determined from the terms of the will.
Beneficiaries who stay in estate property without an ongoing right to occupy it may face claims for occupation rent and related expenses. In Craddock v. Daviau, the beneficiary was ordered to pay occupation rent of $2,900 per month and to reimburse the estate $8,275.32 in utility expenses. The court declined to make him responsible for property taxes and insurance.
