In a recent decision, (Re) Yurkiw Estate, 2025 BCSC 1026, the BC Supreme Court clarified a trustee’s obligation to produce trust files, and specifically, this obligation where there is a corporate trustee.

This was an application by a beneficiary of the Estate of David Thomas George Yurkiw to produce the entire file of the Trustee of the Estate as it related to the Estate. The Court had made a previous order in November 2024 to produce the “entire file”, with the exception of documents to which solicitor-client privilege applied. The Trustee disclosed various documents in response to the 2024 order; however, the beneficiary sought to have the 2024 order enforced through this application, as it was his view that the Trustee’s disclosure was insufficient.

The Trustee was a trust company that had retained a lawyer for the Estate matters. The beneficiary’s request for the entire file included the lawyer’s legal file.

Justice Morely’s reasons provide clarity on two issues: 1) the scope of an “entire file”; and 2) the apparent unique expectations that are placed on corporate trustees. The Court’s findings on both of these issues are discussed below.

The Scope of an “Entire File”

A beneficiary is entitled to see the trustee’s file as a right because the beneficiary “owns” those trust documents. Justice Morely confirmed Lord Justice Salmon’s decision in Re Londonderry’s Settlement, [1964] 3 All E.R. 855, where it was held that beneficiaries’ entitlements are not necessarily to documents themselves, but to the information contained in the documents.

Justice Morely acknowledged that while the modern technological era has resulted in large volumes of emails and digital communications concerning estate matters, it is a trustee’s obligation to ensure they have a system in place to organize these documents.

Therefore, the Court concluded that all physical and electronic records in possession or control of the Trustee that contain information about the trust are trust documents, and consequently are included in the “entire file”, unless:

• the information is transitory, meaning the document is created but not retained because it contains duplicative or unimportant information; or
• the information is in a category of exceptions defined by the common law, including solicitor-client privilege. In these cases, the trustee can maintain a separate interest from the beneficiary.

Documents that fall into either of these categories may be redacted. While other exceptions may exist, if the redactions do not fall into the above categories, the redactions must be explained to the beneficiaries at the outset. Any redactions must be in the best interests of the beneficiaries and must not relate to information necessary to complete an accounting.

Importantly, this clarifies that the portions of a legal file not protected by solicitor-client privilege or another exception must be disclosed to beneficiaries.

“Entire File” in Practice

(Re) Yurkiw Estate clarifies that certain documents that are contained in the pool of trust documents that do not need to be produced to the beneficiaries as part of the  “entire file”. One can imagine that if the information included in these exceptions is not separated from the rest of the trust documents at the time of creation, separating this information out upon request of the “entire file” would be time-consuming and expensive for the trustee. This is especially true with a legal file, as solicitor-client privilege occurs throughout.

To avoid additional costs and time associated with sorting after the fact, the Court confirmed that the onus is on the trustee to have appropriate systems in place and to set up these categories before the information is created. This expectation seems heightened when the trustee is a corporate trustee, as was the case here.

Expectations of Corporate Trustees

Justice Morely held that while trustees generally had a duty to provide the entire file to the beneficiaries, he specifically stated that a corporate trustee, who charges for their services, has an obligation to properly maintain the file of trust documents.

At para. 7, Justice Morely emphasized that the Court generally defers to a trustee’s reasonable record management and retention policies. However, Justice Morely goes on to hold that the Court will not be sympathetic when a trustee, especially an institutional trustee, states that it is no longer possible to conceptually determine what is included in the estate “file”.

In this case, the Court held that the Trustee’s production did not satisfy the previous court order and that inadequate processes were not an appropriate excuse to overcome the duty owed to the beneficiaries. Due to this and the fact that this was an unnecessary application, costs were awarded against the Trustee personally, in other words, the Trustee was not able to pay this amount from the Estate.

Take Away

Justice Morely’s reasons not only emphasize the need and importance for trustees to have adequate record management policies but also implies that, due to their nature, there is a higher expectation placed on corporate trust companies to have these systems in place.

Trustees and corporate trustees, in particular, should take note and ensure they have adequate document management systems in place prior to being hired as a trustee. This especially relates to legal files, as a large volume of emails and digital communications can be exchanged, some of which, but certainly not all, are covered by exceptions to disclosure.

If you have any questions about trustee production obligations, please contact Emily Davies or a member of our Estates & Trusts group.