would have a first charge against his estate in the amount of
$150,000. At the time of their 2007 divorce, a court ordered an
amendment to the separation agreement so that Mr. Penner was
not required to maintain the life insurance policy beyond age 50.
However, he died before he reached 50 years of age.
 As matters transpired, Mr. Penner failed to pay the premiums on the life insurance policy, which lapsed before his death.
 Mr. Penner’s estate is worth slightly more than $100,000.
Under his will, the residue is divided 50:50 between his sister,
Ms. Roulston, on the one hand, and several nieces and nephews,
on the other.
 In September 2015, Ms. McKenny commenced an action
against the estate seeking payment of $150,000. In the context of
an application for directions brought by Ms. Roulston as estate
trustee, the parties asked the court to determine Ms. McKenny’s
claim against the estate. The estate trustee took the position
Ms. McKenny’s claim was statute-barred.
 The application judge held Ms. McKenny’s claim for a first
charge against the estate was not statute-barred. Ms. Roulston
appeals, in her personal capacity as a beneficiary under her
 The appellant takes no issue with the application judge’s
finding that the limitation period in s. 38(3) of the Trustee Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c. T.23 applies to Ms. McKenny’s claim against the
estate. Section 38(3) provides that an action brought against an
estate trustee under s. 38 shall not be brought after the expiration of two years from the death of the deceased.
 Mr. Penner died on March 20, 2013. Ms. McKenny commenced her action more than two years later, on September 18,
 However, the application judge held that Ms. McKenny’s
action was not statute-barred because the application of the
doctrine of fraudulent concealment to the conduct of the estate
trustee tolled the two-year limitation period until at least September 25, 2013. As a result, Ms. McKenny commenced her
action within the limitation period.
 Applying the principles regarding fraudulent concealment
enunciated by this court in Giroux Estate v. Trillium Health Centre (2005), 74 O.R. (3d) 341,  O.J. No. 226 (C.A.), the application judge found ( i) the estate trustee, Ms. Roulston, was in a
special relationship with Ms. McKenny because she had exclusive
possession of knowledge and information whether an insurance
policy existed and thus whether Ms. McKenny had a debt claim