If a beneficiary objects to compensation during a passing of accounts, who reviews the fee — a judge or a court officer?

When a beneficiary objects to the compensation an estate trustee is claiming during a passing of accounts, it's a judge of the Superior Court who ultimately decides whether the fee is fair and reasonable — not an informal administrative reviewer. This flows from the Trustee Act, which entitles an estate trustee only to a "fair and reasonable allowance" for their work, fixed by the court, rather than any guaranteed set rate.

To make that assessment, the judge looks at factors like the size and complexity of the estate, the actual work the trustee did, the responsibility and risk involved, and how efficiently the estate was administered. Compensation isn't awarded on autopilot just because the trustee filed a claim for it — an objecting beneficiary can put evidence and argument before the court about why the claimed amount is too high given what was actually involved.

Because compensation disputes often turn on the specific facts of how much work was genuinely required and how well it was done, both trustees and objecting beneficiaries benefit from getting a clear picture, with supporting records, of exactly what was done before the hearing — vague assertions on either side tend to carry little weight with the court.