Multiple Trustees in Ontario: How Joint Trustees Make Decisions

Naming two or more trustees can feel like a safety measure — more eyes on the trust, less risk of one person acting alone. It can be exactly that. It can also mean the trust grinds to a halt the first time the co-trustees genuinely disagree, because Ontario trust law generally does not let a majority simply outvote the rest.

This article explains the default rule for how multiple trustees are expected to make decisions, what happens when they cannot agree, and how families can plan around the risk before it becomes a real problem.

Why Settlors Name More Than One Trustee

Settlors add a second, or third, trustee for a few common reasons: to provide a check on a single trustee's judgment, to combine a family member's personal knowledge with a professional's expertise, or to make sure the trust is not left without a functioning trustee if one person becomes unavailable. Each of these is a reasonable goal — but each also assumes the co-trustees will actually be able to work together.

The Default Rule: Trustees Generally Must Act Unanimously

Unless the trust document says otherwise, Ontario trust law generally expects co-trustees of a private trust to act unanimously — every trustee needs to agree before a decision affecting the trust is carried out. This is different from how a corporate board or a majority-vote committee typically works. It means a single dissenting trustee can, in effect, block a decision, even if every other trustee disagrees with them.

Some trust documents change this default by expressly allowing decisions by majority vote, or by giving one trustee a tie-breaking or final say on defined matters. Where the document is silent, the unanimity expectation is the starting point.

What Happens When Co-Trustees Disagree

A genuine, unresolved disagreement between co-trustees can leave a trust unable to act — investments cannot be changed, distributions cannot be made, and administrative decisions stall. Beneficiaries can be caught in the middle, watching a trust that is supposed to be working for them effectively frozen by an internal dispute. In a serious or ongoing deadlock, it may become necessary to go to court, either to resolve the specific disputed decision or to replace one or more of the trustees so the trust can function again.

Ways to Reduce the Risk of Deadlock

• Address decision-making explicitly in the trust document, rather than leaving the default unanimity rule to apply by accident.
• Consider an odd number of trustees, or a designated tie-breaker, if majority decision-making is going to be allowed at all.
• Choose co-trustees who can realistically work together, not simply the two people it seemed most natural to name.
• Build in a clear replacement mechanism so a single trustee's refusal to engage, or long-term unavailability, does not paralyze the trust indefinitely.
• Document disagreements and the reasoning behind decisions as they arise, so there is a clear record if a dispute ever needs to be resolved by a court.

Liability When Trustees Act Together

Co-trustees generally share responsibility for decisions made jointly, which is part of why the unanimity rule exists — each trustee is expected to actually turn their mind to a decision, not simply defer to a more assertive co-trustee. A trustee who disagrees with a proposed course of action should make that disagreement clear and documented, rather than going along with something they believe is wrong, since silent agreement can still carry consequences if the decision later turns out to have been improper.

Frequently asked questions