Hull & Hull LLP
By Sofie Hector
March 23rd, 2026
While courts are generally reluctant to interfere with a testator’s choice of estate trustee, that choice will be overridden where it is necessary to ensure the proper, efficient, and impartial administration of the estate.
When engaging in estate planning, parents frequently appoint all of their children as joint estate trustees or attorneys for property and personal care, often with the goal of ensuring fairness and avoiding any perception of favouritism. To reduce the potential for conflict and to facilitate decision‑making, testators and grantors commonly include a “majority rules” clause, which provides that, in the event of disagreement, the decision of the majority will prevail.
While such clauses may appear to streamline potential administrative disputes between siblings, the decision in Childs v Childs reminds us that majority rules provisions are not a cure-all, particularly where family relationships are already strained. This case also serves as a reminder for testators to be cautious when automatically equating equal appointments under their will to fair treatment amongst their children, and that careful consideration of family dynamics should be given when selecting trustees.
