Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Competing passing-of-accounts applications pit siblings Mary Bendastos and Ivan Stos against each other over decades of management of their parents’ rental properties and finances.
• The adequacy and proportionality of Ivan’s financial disclosure, particularly for rental income, expenses, and bank records, lie at the heart of Mary’s motion for directions.
• A critical unresolved evidentiary gap concerns a $300,000 line of credit secured against the matrimonial home, which Ivan transferred to unidentified accounts without full supporting records.
• The scope and interpretation of Justice DeSousa’s earlier family law order and the Alter Ego Trust framework drive what accounting is required from each party and for which time periods.
• Mary’s insistence on extensive additional disclosure as a precondition to mediation is found to be overbroad and a source of delay, although some targeted additional disclosure is ordered.
• The court ultimately orders a focused accounting of the line of credit, directs cooperation with the Alter Ego trustee on the Croatian property, and requires mediation and a combined hearing of the passing of accounts, leaving costs and any monetary adjustments to the later proceeding.

Background and family dispute over property and finances
The litigation arises from a long-running intra-family conflict between siblings Mary Bendastos and Ivan Stos over the financial affairs of their parents, Janko and Marija Stos. Their parents owned a substantial real estate portfolio, including the matrimonial home at 115 Russell Avenue, several rental properties in Ottawa, a jointly owned Torbolton Township lot, and a Croatian property. Over many years these properties generated material rental income that was used to pay expenses, support the parents, and fund legal disputes.
Janko and Marija separated in April 2015 when Marija entered long-term care and then commenced family law proceedings seeking spousal support and an equalization of net family property. In September 2015, Janko was diagnosed with progressive dementia and was found incapable of giving informed testimony in that family law case. Marija died in November 2017, with Ivan acting as estate trustee for her estate and continuing the family law litigation.
The family law matter concluded by Minutes of Settlement that were incorporated into Justice DeSousa’s Final Order in November 2018. Central to that settlement was the creation of an Alter Ego Trust for Janko. The core Stos real estate assets were to be transferred to this trust to be managed by an independent trustee, Travis Webb, with the trust to fund Janko’s care during his lifetime and ultimately divide the remaining trust property equally between Mary and Ivan upon Janko’s death. The assets were transferred and the Alter Ego Trust took over management of the properties on March 31, 2021. Janko later died on November 9, 2022.

Roles of Mary and Ivan in managing the parents’ assets
Before the Alter Ego Trust assumed control, both siblings had played significant roles in managing their parents’ finances and properties, which is why each is now required to pass accounts. Mary was Janko’s attorney under a Power of Attorney from July 2011 until the trustee took over in March 2021. During this period she bore primary responsibility for the management of Janko’s assets and personal care, though Ivan remained involved in specific properties.
Ivan had managed Janko’s financial affairs, including four rental properties, the family home at 115 Russell Avenue, and the Torbolton lot, for a long period predating Mary’s appointment. He also continued to manage a key income property, 423 Chapel Street (a student rental), until August 2018, even though Mary was already acting as Janko’s attorney. Ivan alleges that during his tenure he oversaw repairs, renovations and operating expenses and that he retained an accountant, Penny Tam, and his lawyer, John Cardill, to compile an informal accounting for court purposes.
The parties’ management overlapped in time and responsibility. Both accuse the other of mismanagement: Mary criticizes Ivan’s record-keeping and unexplained transfers, while Ivan asserts that under Mary’s watch there were tax arrears, unpaid utility bills, lapses in insurance, and problematic handling of tenants and municipal compliance. Both have applied for the passing of accounts for their respective management periods, and each has objected to the other’s accounting.

Justice DeSousa’s order and the Alter Ego Trust terms
Justice DeSousa’s 2018 Order, incorporating the parties’ settlement, is the key legal framework governing the later accounting dispute. Seven pieces of real estate were to be transferred to the Alter Ego Trust, with the beneficial interest in Janko rolled over on a tax-free basis. Ivan was to release and transfer his joint interests in three properties (109 Russell Avenue, 95 Henderson Avenue, and 423 Chapel Street) to Janko, with an indemnity mechanism if CRA later assessed capital gains. The trustee was given full discretion to decide if properties needed to be sold to meet liabilities.
The order provided that the trust assets would be held until Janko’s death, with net income used for his general welfare (including costs associated with the matrimonial home) and maintenance of the trust assets. On Janko’s death, Marija’s and Mary’s share of surplus net rental income were to be calculated and divided equally between Janko and Marija’s estate, with Janko’s care costs applied against his share and any shortfall charged to Marija’s estate. Only Janko could benefit from the trust assets during his lifetime, and funeral expenses for Marija were to be reimbursed to whoever paid them.
Justice DeSousa’s Order also contained detailed provisions on accounting. Mary and Ivan were each required, at their own expense, to provide accounting for the periods when they received rental income and managed the properties and financial assets. For Ivan, this ran from January 1, 1999 to the trustee’s appointment; for Mary, from March 1, 2011 to the trustee’s appointment (excluding certain Chapel Street periods that Ivan managed). The accounting was to include gross and net rental income, all expenses related to Janko’s care and the trust assets, and rents collected for 423 Chapel Street and the garage at 93 Henderson for specified periods. If either objected to the other’s accounts, that party had to bring an application for a contested passing of accounts and be bound by the judge’s findings.

Procedural history in the estate litigation
In the estate context, Mary commenced an application for the passing of accounts for assets held in trust for Janko. Ivan filed a detailed Notice of Objection in September 2021, alleging significant deficiencies and unexplained monies. Mary replied in October 2021. Ivan then launched his own application for passing of accounts regarding his management of Janko’s property, and Mary filed a Notice of Objection to his accounts as well.
An earlier order by Justice McLean had required Mary to produce a broad swath of financial records going back to 1999. That order was later set aside by the Divisional Court on the basis that substantive terms had been made without submissions and without reasons, with the result that future passing of accounts was to proceed under Justice DeSousa’s framework. Subsequent orders by Justice Gomery and then Justice Rogers set timelines and imposed mediation requirements, and at one point stayed the directions pending further motion.
Multiple disputes arose over mediation. Mary cancelled a mediation after the Divisional Court decision and later refused to attend another date proposed by Ivan’s counsel, insisting Ivan first revise his accounts and produce more documents. She also brought a contempt-related motion attempting to strike Ivan’s pleadings and obtain a finding of contempt for alleged non-compliance with Justice DeSousa’s Order. Justice Carter refused to strike Ivan’s application, declined to find him in contempt, and reiterated that the proper course was to seek directions or proceed to mediation, as earlier ordered.

Mary’s motion for directions and disclosure demands
In the decision under discussion, Mary brings a motion for directions within this web of applications and orders. She argues that Ivan’s accounting is “woefully deficient” and fails to comply with the breadth of Justice DeSousa’s Order. She lists an extensive set of documents she says are necessary to complete the accounting, including: bank statements, cancelled cheques, ABM withdrawals, detailed rent reconciliations for multiple properties, full lease and rent roll documentation, missing cheque records, full line-of-credit accounting, and all renovation and repair invoices across the portfolio from 1999 to 2021.
Mary also complains that Ivan has not cooperated with the trustee of the Alter Ego Trust in relation to the Croatian property. There has been a buyer ready to proceed since August 2024, but the sale apparently stalled for lack of Ivan’s identification documents (apostille identification). Mary seeks an order that he provide the documents or authorize the trustee to sign for him.
Her motion thus serves both as an attack on the sufficiency of Ivan’s existing material and an attempt to obtain a very broad set of further records as a precondition to mediation and the passing-of-accounts hearing.

Ivan’s response and concerns about Mary’s conduct
Ivan opposes the motion, arguing that he has already produced all relevant documentation reasonably available to him, including informal accountings prepared by his accountant and multiple affidavits with bank records, tax and utility invoices, and receipts for the care of Marija. He points to affidavits and exhibits already filed that set out rental income and expenses for the relevant years, supporting documentation from his lawyer’s trust account, and statements from Janko’s accounts covering the period from 1999 to 2011.
Ivan also criticizes Mary’s failure to produce her own records and says this hampers his ability to complete his accounting. He claims Mary’s approach has been litigation-heavy and disproportionate: instead of using the usual tools of cross-examination or third-party production (from banks, tenants and institutions), she has pursued aggressive motion practice, including an unsuccessful motion to strike his passing-of-accounts application. He also raises substantive concerns about Mary’s handling of rental income, transfers from Janko’s accounts to Mary’s and to her son’s account, and alleged arrears in taxes and utilities under her watch.

Legal framework for passing of accounts and disclosure
Justice Doyle situates the dispute within the statutory and procedural framework governing passings of accounts for estate trustees and attorneys for property. Under the Estates Act, an executor or administrator can be compelled to account at the instance of a person interested in the estate, and the court has broad jurisdiction to inquire into the whole of the deceased’s property, its administration, and any alleged misconduct causing loss. The Substitute Decisions Act similarly empowers the court to order passing of all or part of the accounts of an attorney or guardian of property.
The Rules of Civil Procedure provide that any person with a financial interest in the estate may move to require an estate trustee to pass accounts and set out the proper form of those accounts. Case law emphasizes that attorneys for property and trustees must keep proper accounts and be ready to account for all transactions during the period when they assumed responsibility, but the standard is one of reasonableness, not perfection. Courts have acknowledged that lay fiduciaries need not keep flawless records but must exercise ordinary prudence and diligence and maintain enough documentation to permit meaningful review.
Justice Doyle also highlights proportionality in disclosure. Requests for additional documents must be shown to target records with real probative value. It is generally not appropriate to demand production of secondary materials merely as potential “fishing” grounds where relevant evidence might possibly be found. The court stresses that for a passing of accounts, the focus is on whether the accounts as presented permit a fair factual inquiry, with additional disclosure ordered where necessary and proportional.

Findings on the scope and proportionality of Mary’s requests
The court finds that Ivan has, to date, provided a substantial body of information: affidavits, accounting summaries, and supporting documentation going back many years. While Mary has identified some concrete deficiencies, she has also made wide-ranging demands that extend well beyond what is reasonably necessary at this stage. Her insistence on full satisfaction of these broad requests as a condition of attending mediation is found to have contributed to delay, especially given earlier orders and her prior willingness to mediate without such disclosure.
Mary’s broad demand for “full and complete” accounting and backup documents for all bank accounts, rents, and property expenses from 1999 to 2021 is characterized as overreaching and not proportional. The judge notes that courts and parties must weigh the burden and cost of such expansive production against the incremental probative value of the records, and that a more focused approach is consistent with both proportionality principles and the nature of passing-of-accounts proceedings.
Accordingly, apart from one critical issue discussed below, the court declines to order the sweeping disclosure Mary seeks. Ivan has provided enough material for the court to review his passing of accounts and determine at the hearing whether further targeted information is needed. The outstanding factual disputes—including alleged mismanagement, missing rents and unexplained transfers—are better addressed at that full evidentiary hearing rather than through massive pre-hearing document production.

The $300,000 line of credit and the need for focused disclosure
The key exception to the court’s reluctance to order more disclosure is the $300,000 line of credit taken out against the matrimonial home at 115 Russell Avenue. Earlier in the family litigation, a master had ordered Mary and Ivan to account for this joint line of credit, which had been placed on the home for Marija’s sole use. In this motion, the evidence about the line of credit remains sparse.
Ivan has stated that the $300,000 was used for Marija’s legal fees and other purposes, but he has not provided clear records tracing where the funds were deposited, how they were spent, and how the line of credit was serviced over time. The funds were transferred, while Ivan was acting as Marija’s attorney, to an unspecified account for which no disclosure has been provided. Later, when the property was transferred into the Alter Ego Trust, the line of credit was paid off by Janko, and there were four defaults that had to be cured by the trust. The court notes that because Ivan was solely responsible for the line of credit, the principal and interest paid must be deducted from his share of the trust assets, but a full accounting is needed to implement that consequence accurately.
Given the central financial significance of this transaction and the clear gap in the record, Justice Doyle orders Ivan, within 60 days, to identify and produce the account number(s) that held the line-of-credit funds and to provide a full accounting. That accounting must include statements showing all charges and payments on the line of credit, the source of interest and principal payments, and all communications with the bank regarding defaults and minimum payments. This targeted disclosure is deemed necessary for a fair passing-of-accounts process and to give effect to the earlier family law settlement and trust arrangement.

Croatian property and cooperation with the trustee
The court also addresses the stalled sale of the Croatian property held within the Alter Ego Trust. Both parties are ordered to fully cooperate and provide all documents requested by the trustee, Travis Webb, to facilitate the transfer and sale. While Mary had sought an order effectively allowing the trustee to act in Ivan’s stead if he did not produce identification, Justice Doyle focuses instead on mutual cooperation with the trustee rather than substituting signatures, emphasizing that the property is trust property and that both siblings must support the trustee’s efforts to administer and realize it.

Outcome, successful party, and monetary consequences
In the result, the court grants Mary’s motion only in part. Her central relief—wholesale additional document production on a very broad scale—is refused as disproportionate and unnecessary at this stage. However, she succeeds in obtaining a specific, time-limited order requiring Ivan to provide a full accounting of the $300,000 line of credit. The court also gives directions that the parties must now proceed in an efficient and orderly way: they are to set the matter down for a combined hearing of both passing-of-accounts applications, attend mediation in good faith at least 60 days before the hearing date, and cooperate fully with the trustee regarding the Croatian property.
On this motion, therefore, Mary Bendastos is the partially successful party. She achieves a targeted disclosure order on a critical financial issue and confirmation that the matter will move forward to mediation and a full hearing, but the vast majority of her document requests are denied, and the judge is critical of her role in prior delays. The court expressly reserves the costs of the motion to the judge who will hear the passing of accounts, and it does not quantify any damages or net monetary adjustment arising from the line-of-credit issue or other accounting disputes in this decision. Because the exact dollar amounts to be reallocated between Mary and Ivan (including any deductions from Ivan’s share for the line of credit and any costs orders) will only be determined at the later passing-of-accounts hearing, the total monetary award or costs in favor of the successful party cannot yet be determined from this decision.