The Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador has set aside a ruling that stripped a beneficiary of her inheritance after she unsuccessfully sought to remove the executor of her father's estate. The court said the judge had to determine whether her removal application was frivolous and vexatious before enforcing the will's no-contest clause.
In Franklin Estate (Re), 2026 NLCA 30, decided August 20, the unanimous court ordered a new hearing on the application to enforce the clause. It upheld the conclusion that the removal application triggered the clause, but found that this did not complete the required analysis.
Two applications, different questions
John Franklin's will named his children as beneficiaries and appointed Nina Franklin as executor. Gemma Franklin applied to remove Nina, alleging failures in estate administration and accounting. Nina separately asked the court to enforce a clause that revoked benefits when a beneficiary brought litigation connected with the will, subject to exceptions for judicial interpretation and directions during administration.
Different judges heard the two applications. One dismissed the removal application. The other enforced the no-contest clause and ruled that Gemma had lost her inheritance.
The August decision concerned the enforcement decision. The appeal from the dismissal of the removal application was being pursued separately, and the panel chose to hear the enforcement appeal on its own.
Enforcement required factual findings
Writing for the court, Justice G.L.C. Noel said seeking Nina's removal challenged the will-maker's choice of executor. The application therefore fell within the clause, rather than its exception for directions about administration.
But the court also held that a no-contest clause cannot shield an estate's personal representative from removal for misconduct. Courts retain responsibility for supervising estate administration and protecting beneficiaries.
The judge enforcing the clause had relied on the will's wording without making the factual findings needed to assess the removal proceeding. Its dismissal did not establish that it was frivolous and vexatious.
The appeal court explained that a frivolous proceeding lacks arguable merit, while a vexatious proceeding misuses court resources or is intended to harass, threaten or embarrass another party. The assessment can involve different factors depending on the case. Here, it required consideration beyond the pleadings.
Inheritance question returns for a hearing
The new hearing must determine whether the evidence establishes that Gemma's removal application met that test. If it did not, the no-contest clause cannot be enforced on the basis of that application. The appeal court did not itself determine that Gemma's proceeding was frivolous and vexatious or decide the executor-removal appeal.
The court also expressly left open how no-contest clauses operate when a beneficiary challenges a will's validity on grounds such as testamentary capacity or suspicious circumstances.
The appeal was allowed, the enforcement application was sent back to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the lower-court costs order was set aside. The appeal court made no order for appeal costs.
