Is Independent Asset Verification Becoming Part of an Estate Trustee’s Duty of Inquiry?
For generations, an estate trustee stepping into an administration has started with the paperwork in front of them: the Will, the bank statements that happened to be lying around, the prior trustee’s inventory (if applicable). That starting point is not going away. But as estate trustees, and particularly neutral and succeeding trustees who inherit an administration someone else began, come under closer scrutiny, a question is emerging: Is documented, independent verification of what the estate actually owns and owes becoming an expected part of the duty of inquiry?
My view is that the practice is moving in that direction, and that estate trustees and their counsel would be wise to get ahead of it.
What the duty of inquiry has traditionally required
An estate trustee’s core obligations are familiar: identify and gather the assets, pay the debts, account to the beneficiaries and distribute in accordance with the Will or the law of intestacy. Each of those obligations depends on the first. An estate trustee cannot properly preserve, account for or distribute assets they have not found, and cannot safely distribute while liabilities remain unidentified.
Historically, the standard of diligence has been applied pragmatically. An estate trustee was expected to make sensible inquiries, follow obvious leads and act on reliable information. Where a capable predecessor had compiled an inventory, relying on it was generally seen as reasonable unless there was a reason to doubt it.
Why relying on past practice is getting uncomfortable
During a time when independent asset verification is digitally available at a relatively nominal cost, the ‘sensible inquiries’ approach becomes harder to defend, especially when trustees are now expected “to leave no stone unturned”. What was ‘reasonable’ in a pre-COVID world seems less reasonable today. The reliance on past practice is increasingly hard to defend in the very situations where succeeding trustees are most often appointed. A trustee is usually replaced because something has gone wrong: delay, conflict, a breakdown in the relationship with beneficiaries, or concerns about how the estate has been handled. In those circumstances, the outgoing trustee’s list of assets is precisely the document whose completeness is in question.
Several pressures compound the problem. Wealth is more fragmented and more digital than it once was, spread across multiple institutions, including: real estate, registered and non-registered accounts, insurance products, and holdings that leave little paper trail such as cryptocurrency. Beneficiaries armed with AI tools are better informed and quicker to challenge, and on a passing of accounts, the question is not only whether the estate trustee acted honestly, but whether they can show what they did was ‘reasonable’ and that the estate’s original assets list is complete.
The uncomfortable reality is that “I relied on what I was given” describes a process, but it does not evidence diligence. When an overlooked bank account or undisclosed liability surfaces after distribution, the estate trustee who can only point to letters sent to the major banks, or in the case of a succeeding trustee, an inherited inventory, is in a weak position.
A recent data point from the Toronto Estates List
A recent 2026 Judgment from the Toronto Estates List (Williams and Brockhurst et al.) offers a concrete illustration of where the practice may be heading. In a Judgment dated June 1, 2026, an estate trustee was removed on consent and the Court appointed a professional succeeding estate trustee in her place. Among the terms, the Court directed that, within 14 days of the Order and before the issuance of the Certificate of Appointment, the succeeding trustee commission an independent third-party report to search for and identify all estate assets and liabilities, produce the initial and final reports to the beneficiaries immediately upon receipt, and pay the cost of the report from the estate.
What makes the Order instructive is how the verification step sits alongside the more traditional tools. The same Judgment required the outgoing estate trustee to deliver a list of all known assets and liabilities and the estate documentation within 30 days. It also empowered the succeeding estate trustee to seek records from the Canada Revenue Agency and to compel production of financial, banking and investment records in the same manner as the deceased could have. In other words, the predecessor’s inventory and the succeeding trustee’s own records requests were not treated as sufficient on their own; independent verification was built in as a parallel, documented step, with its results to be shared with the parties.
Some caution is warranted. The Judgment was made on consent and does not contain reasons regarding asset verification, so it does not purport to restate the law of the duty of inquiry. To my knowledge, it is the first order of its kind, but a single order does not make sweeping precedent. Its significance is a signal: the Court was prepared to make independent asset verification an express term of a succeeding estate trustee’s appointment, and the beneficiaries saw value in it.
Practical implications
For estate trustees, especially professional and succeeding trustees, the lesson is to treat verification as part of the job rather than an option or reaction to a problem. Consider independent asset verification at the outset, even before applying for probate, when possible. An asset verification report documents the process: what searches were done, by whom, when, and with what results. That record is what will matter on a passing of accounts.
For beneficiaries and their counsel, the Judgment provides a practical template. Where an estate trustee is being removed or replaced, or where there are concerns about the administration, counsel can ask that the order appointing a neutral or succeeding trustee include an independent verification step, a firm timeline, disclosure of the results to the parties, and clarity that the cost be borne by the estate.
For counsel drafting removal and appointment orders, it is worth considering verification alongside the usual terms: delivery of records by the outgoing estate trustee, authority to obtain CRA and institutional records, and liberty to seek advice and directions. Proportionality still matters. Not every estate warrants a third-party search, and the cost should be weighed against the size and complexity of the estate and the risk of undiscovered assets or liabilities. With that said, independent verification of what an estate owns and owes (and does not) is equally valuable.
The takeaway
The duty of inquiry has always required reasonable diligence. What is changing is the determination of what constitutes ‘reasonable’ and how ‘diligence’ is demonstrated. As scrutiny of trustees grows during this “Great Wealth Transfer” the question is shifting from “did you rely on reliable information?” to “what did you do to verify it, and can you show it?” Independent, documented asset verification may not yet be a formal legal requirement, but it is fast becoming the practical way for estate trustees to answer these questions pre-emptively and with confidence.
Aly Virani is a Partner in the Private Client Group at Blaney McMurtry LLP in Toronto. He advises high net worth clients with a focus on international Estate administration, succession planning, domestic contracts, and guardianship.
Disclosure: The author was counsel in the proceeding that produced the Judgment discussed in this article. The report named in that Judgment is also provided by a company the author works with.
This article was originally published by Law360 Canada, part of LexisNexis Canada Inc. Read more here: https://www.law360.ca/ca/estates/articles/2544457/is-independent-asset-verification-becoming-part-of-an-estate-trustee-s-duty-of-inquiry-