However, court finds refusal to livestream mother's memorial service did not justify removal
The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia has suspended a co-executor from administering her late mother's estate after finding that her opposition to a matrimonial property application created a conflict between her personal interests and her obligations to beneficiaries.
In Curry v. Curry, 2026 NSSC 295, the court suspended Mary Curry from all activities as co-executor of Anne Curry's estate until the matrimonial property application is finally determined.
Anne died in January 2022, leaving seven adult children. Her will appointed daughters Mary, Paula Curry and Patricia Curry Bauer as co-executors and directed equal distribution of the estate's residue among the children.
Anne's husband, Leo Curry, had established the Morar Trust, which held assets valued at $15.9 million in January 2026. The trust provided for payments to the seven children, certain grandchildren and other beneficiaries, with the remaining residue to be divided equally among Mary and her brothers Philip and William Curry.
Before Anne's death, Paula, acting as her court-appointed representative, applied under Nova Scotia's Matrimonial Property Act to determine whether the trust assets constituted matrimonial assets subject to division.
Anne's son, Daniel Curry, subsequently applied to remove Mary as co-executor, citing her opposition to that application, her involvement in separate trust litigation, and her refusal to livestream a memorial service.
The court found that Daniel had received notice of the memorial service but could not travel from British Columbia because of a health issue. Mary refused his request to livestream the service because she believed their mother would not have wanted it. The court noted that no legal authority supported the argument that failing to livestream the service was disrespectful or undignified and concluded that the refusal did not justify removing Mary as co-executor.
The Supreme Court rejected the memorial service and trust litigation grounds but found Mary's opposition to the matrimonial property application created a conflict of interest.
The court found that the application could significantly increase the estate's value and that transferring trust assets to the estate would reduce the amount available for distribution to Mary and her brothers.
The court found that Mary had done nothing unlawful and was not satisfied that she had acted in bad faith. Apart from the conflict arising from the matrimonial property application, the court was not satisfied that she could not fairly administer the estate or that estate assets or beneficiaries' collective welfare were at risk.
However, the court concluded that Mary could not continue acting as co-executor while opposing the matrimonial property application. The court also found that Mary could not be privy to the estate's legal advice and litigation strategy in pursuing the matrimonial property application.
Rather than removing Mary permanently, the court suspended her authority until the matrimonial property proceedings conclude. The remaining co-executors may continue administering the estate without consulting Mary. The court also ordered Mary to pay Daniel's application costs.
