Figley v. Figley — The Saskatchewan Case That Shows Why Sole-Executor Appointments Backfire

Raymond Figley was a Saskatchewan farmer with eight children and decades of work poured into the land. A few weeks before his death in October 2007 he signed a new will naming one son — Gene — as sole executor of an estate that included the family farming company and the land beneath it. Within months of the funeral, the family was in court. Five years later, in 2012, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal upheld a chambers decision removing Gene as executor and putting the Public Trustee in his place.

The case is now cited routinely in Canadian estate-litigation papers as a leading example of when a court will displace a testator's choice of executor. For an ordinary Canadian writing a will, though, the more useful question is the one the case answers obliquely — what kind of family situation makes a sole-executor appointment dangerous in the first place, and what to do instead.

The bare facts of Figley v. Figley #

Raymond Figley farmed in Saskatchewan and incorporated his operation as Figley Farms Ltd. in 1969, transferring the working assets into the company.^[1] Some of his sons worked the farm with him over the decades; others built lives elsewhere. Two of the sons — Ron and Stan — would later say their father had promised them in 1980 that the farming company would be theirs if they kept working it. That oral promise, true or not, set the stage for everything that followed.

Raymond died in October 2007. His most recent will, signed shortly before death, named Gene as the sole executor. Several siblings challenged the will and brought an application to have Gene removed as executor and the Saskatchewan Public Trustee appointed in his place under the province's administration-of-estates regime.^[2]

The chambers judge granted the removal. Gene appealed.

What the Court of Appeal actually said #

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, in reasons delivered by Richards J.A., dismissed the appeal on the executor-removal question. The court accepted the chambers judge's findings about Gene's conduct in three pieces:

• He had expressed open hostility toward his siblings, including statements suggesting an intention to "get" them rather than treat them as beneficiaries entitled to a fair accounting.
• He had destroyed or dealt carelessly with records that an executor is generally expected to preserve and produce.
• He had attempted to deal with estate land — moving toward sale or transfer — before his siblings had even seen the contents of the will, let alone had a chance to be heard.

Taken together, the court held, those findings displaced any presumption that the testator's choice of executor should be honoured. As Richards J.A. put it, it was difficult to understand how Gene could fairly and even-handedly administer the estate "when he starts from this highly partisan point of approach."^[1]

The legal framework the court applied is one Canadian estate lawyers will recognise. Courts look first to the testator's express wish — Raymond chose Gene — and then ask whether the executor's conduct shows they cannot carry out the role with the good faith and fidelity the law generally requires of a trustee.^[4] Hostility alone is not enough. Friction between an executor and a beneficiary is normal. What tips a case over the line is conduct that endangers the estate or shows the executor is willing to use their position against the people they owe duties to.

Why this case keeps coming up #

Three reasons Figley keeps appearing in Canadian estate-planning papers:

First, the family pattern in Figley is one of the most common patterns in Canadian estates. A parent runs a business, farm, or operation; one child works in it alongside the parent; the other children live separate lives. When the parent dies, the working child often inherits a disproportionate share of the operating assets — sometimes by design, sometimes through joint ownership of land or shares — and is named executor over the rest. The other siblings, looking in from outside, see one of their own holding all the cards and turning hostile.

Second, the Court of Appeal's reasoning is portable. It applies the standard Canadian common-law test for executor removal — a high bar, but a real one — and explains exactly what kind of conduct can meet it. Lawyers cite the case both ways: beneficiaries cite it as authority for removal applications, and estate-planning lawyers cite it to clients as a reason to think harder about sole-executor appointments.

Third, the practical consequences in Figley were significant. By the time the Public Trustee took over, years of administration had been lost, professional fees had eaten into the estate, and family relationships were further damaged by litigation that probably would not have happened with a different executor structure in the will.

What it means for your will #

The most useful lesson is structural, not legal. If you are writing a will that gives one child something the others do not get — the farm, the family business, the cottage, controlling shares in a holding company — pause before also naming that child as sole executor. The administration role and the windfall recipient role are different jobs. Concentrating them in one person, in a family where the other children expect to share in the estate, multiplies the chance of dispute.

Three structural alternatives are worth thinking about:

Co-executors drawn from different sides of the family. Two siblings serving jointly, each with cheque-signing and decision-making power, naturally check each other. The trade-off is slower administration and the risk of deadlock. For estates over a certain size, the slowdown is usually worth it.

A neutral third party as executor or co-executor. A trust company, a long-time family lawyer or accountant, or a neutral family friend can take the administrative role while the children focus on the inheritance. Trust companies charge a percentage fee, typically in the range of a few percent of the estate, which can be reasonable for complex estates and expensive for simple ones. For estates with operating businesses or active farms, the cost of a corporate executor is often less than the cost of one round of family litigation.

A clearly named alternate. Even if you decide to name one child as sole executor, name a clear alternate — and consider naming a neutral alternate rather than another sibling. If the first executor is removed or steps down, the alternate steps in without another court application to appoint someone fresh.

If your estate already includes business or farm assets, the question of who runs the operation after death is also worth resolving in your lifetime through a shareholders' agreement, a partnership agreement, or a transfer of working interests before death. Leaving those questions for an executor to resolve under hostile sibling scrutiny is what produces cases like Figley.

What beneficiaries can take from Figley #

For beneficiaries on the receiving end of a Figley-style executor, the case is also useful — but with caveats. The remedy of removal exists. Canadian courts will use it where the evidence is clear. But the bar is high, the application is expensive, and the moving beneficiary needs to be able to point to specific conduct that goes beyond ordinary friction or disagreement.

Documentation matters. Communications from the executor that show hostility, evidence of records being destroyed or withheld, attempts to deal with assets without notice, and any sign of self-dealing all build the evidentiary picture a court will need. The cleaner the record, the better the chance of removal. Vague complaints about an executor's personality rarely succeed; documented conduct that endangers the estate or its beneficiaries can.

Many estates can be saved before a removal application by less drastic steps — a formal demand for an accounting, an application to pass accounts, mediation, or even a letter from counsel that puts the executor on notice. Some executors who are simply overwhelmed will accept help or even step down voluntarily when the situation is named. The full court fight is the last resort, not the first.

What we focus on at It's Simple Will #

A clear executor structure is one of the things our Will Creator at app.itssimplewill.ca walks every Canadian through. The product asks you to name a primary executor and at least one alternate, and the companion guide on how to choose an executor lays out the trade-offs of co-executors, neutral parties, and corporate executors in plain English. For broader context on what executors actually do once they are appointed, the executor pillar and our executor-of-will checklist for Canada are good companion reads.

For families with farm or business assets specifically, our wills-for-business-owners guide and the wills-for-farmers guide walk through the structural questions that Figley v. Figley should have prompted years before Raymond's death.