against the estate; ( ii) the estate trustee acted in an unconscionable manner by withholding from Ms. McKenny material facts
about the status of the insurance policy; and ( iii) as a result of
withholding that information, Ms. McKenny had a reasonable
belief, at least until September 25, 2013, that Mr. Penner’s insurance policy had been in good standing at the time of his death.
 Ms. Roulston submits the application judge made two main
errors in applying the doctrine of fraudulent concealment. First,
the trial judge erred in finding a special relationship existed
between the estate trustee and Ms. McKenny. Second, he erred in
finding that the conduct of the estate trustee was such as to
attract the operation of the doctrine of fraudulent concealment.
 We are not persuaded by either submission.
 First, we see no error in the application judge’s finding that
a special relationship existed between Ms. Roulston, as estate
trustee, and Ms. McKenny. In the present case, the special relationship arose from a combination of the duties owed at law by an
estate trustee to estate creditors and Ms. Roulston’s control over
information about any insurance policies owned by the deceased.
 The law imposes on estate trustees duties to the deceased’s
creditors. Property of a deceased that vests in his estate trustee is
subject to the payment of his debts: Estates Administration Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c. E.22, s. 2(1). As a result, one of the fundamental
duties of an estate trustee is to ascertain the debts and liabilities
owing by the estate and to pay them: Carmen S. Thériault, ed.,
Widdifield on Executors and Trustees, looseleaf (2011-Rel. 1),
6th ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2016), at p. 3-1.
 In addition, in the present case information about any
insurance policies in place at the time of the deceased’s death lay
within the control of the estate trustee. Following Mr. Penner’s
death, counsel for Ms. McKenny wrote to counsel for the estate
asking for particulars of any policy of insurance under the separation agreement. Estate counsel responded on June 4, 2013 that
the estate trustee was “currently making investigations with
respect to the insurance policy”. Ms. McKenny’s counsel then contacted the insurer, Sun Life Financial, seeking information about
any policy. Sun Life advised it could only release information to
the estate trustee and therefore was “unable to confirm the status
of any policy [Mr. Penner] may have been insured under”.
 Ms. McKenny was unable to obtain information about
a policy directly from the insurer. Therefore, we see no error in the
application judge’s findings that ( i) [at para. 47] “the estate trustee
had exclusive possession of knowledge and information of whether
Ms. McKenny’s debt actually existed”; and ( ii) [at para. 49] “since
the estate trustee was in a unique and privileged position to