Shapiro v. Shapiro
- Citation
- 2026 ONCA 144
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 25 February 2026
- Posture
- Civil Succession/estate Law Appeal / Appeal to the Court of Appeal From a Superior Court of Justice Judgment
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 25 February 2026
- Posture
- Civil Succession/estate Law Appeal / Appeal to the Court of Appeal From a Superior Court of Justice Judgment
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court dismissed the appeal because s.76 of the Succession Law Reform Act confers exclusive authority on the Divisional Court over appeals under the Act, and therefore the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Costs payable to the respondent by the Estate in the agreed all-inclusive amount of $25,000
02
Material facts
Parties
Jack Shapiro
Applicant (respondent) Counsel: Anne Posno, Rebecca Waxman, Stephen VictorMichael Shapiro (personally and as Estate Trustee for the Estate of Carol-Sue Shapiro)
Respondent (appellant) Counsel: Margot L. Pomerleau, Bre Quinelle BoudreauTracy Shapiro
Respondent (appellant) Counsel: Margot L. Pomerleau, Bre Quinelle BoudreauAmounts and remedies
- Costs Award: CAD 25,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Succession/estate Law Appeal / Appeal to the Court of Appeal From a Superior Court of Justice Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the appeal falls under s.76 of the Succession Law Reform Act and is therefore within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Divisional Court
- 02
Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear an appeal governed by the Succession Law Reform Act
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicant (Jack Shapiro) submitted that s.76 of the Succession Law Reform Act vests exclusive authority over appeals under the Act in the Divisional Court, barring the Court of Appeal from hearing the appeal.
- Respondent
- Appellants (Michael and Tracy Shapiro) contended the matter was properly before the Court of Appeal and that s.76 did not preclude the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction or did not apply to this appeal.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26, s.76
Statutory exclusivity of appellate jurisdiction for succession matters
- 02
Principles of appellate jurisdiction and Ontario jurisprudence
Courts must respect statutory allocation of jurisdiction and decline to hear matters committed exclusively to another forum
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court dismissed the appeal because s.76 of the Succession Law Reform Act confers exclusive authority on the Divisional Court over appeals under the Act, and therefore the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
- Appeal dismissed
- Costs payable to the respondent by the Estate in the agreed all-inclusive amount of $25,000
Source and reliance status
Court of Appeal for Ontario · 25 February 2026
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Judgment· 25 February 2026
Shapiro v. Shapiro Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2026-02-25 Neutral citation 2026 ONCA 144 Docket numbers COA-25-CV-0690 Judges Lauwers, Peter D.; Huscroft, Grant; Gomery, Sally A. Subject Civil Decision Content
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Shapiro v. Shapiro, 2026 ONCA 144 DATE: 20260225 DOCKET: COA-25-CV-0690 Lauwers, Huscroft and Gomery JJ.A. IN THE MATTER OF the Estate of Carol-Sue Shapiro, deceased
BETWEEN Jack Shapiro Applicant (Respondent) and Michael Shapiro, personally, and in his capacity as Estate Trustee for the Estate of Carol-Sue Shapiro*, and Tracy Shapiro Respondents (Appellant*) Margot L. Pomerleau and Bre Quinelle Boudreau, for the appellant Anne Posno, Rebecca Waxman and Stephen Victor, for the respondent Heard and rendered orally: February 24, 2026 On appeal from the Judgment of Justice Karen Jensen of the Superior Court of Justice, dated May 6, 2025, with reasons reported at 2025 ONSC 2781.
REASONS FOR DECISION [1] We have concluded that the judgment under appeal is on its face under the Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.
26. The Divisional Court is given exclusive authority over any appeal under s. 76 of that Act. The appeal is therefore dismissed. [2] Costs payable to the respondent by the Estate, in the agreed to and all-inclusive amount of $25,000. “P. Lauwers J.A.” “Grant Huscroft J.A.” “S. Gomery J.A.”
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.