Undue Influence in BC: Beckman v. Vinci, and How to Set Aside a Will or Gift

Undue influence is one of the most effective legal grounds to challenge a will or significant lifetime transfer in British Columbia. Where pressure, dependency, or manipulation shapes a person’s decisions, the court may set those decisions aside.

This issue often arises in disputes involving caregivers, late-in-life changes to estate plans, and situations where a vulnerable person becomes dependent on another.

For an overview of related claims, see our Estate Litigation and Disputing a Will practice areas.

What Is Undue Influence?

Undue influence is concerned with whether a decision truly reflects the free will of the person making it. It is not enough that someone was persuaded. The influence must rise to the level where one person had the ability to dominate the will of another.

As explained in Geffen v. Goodman Estate, the law focuses on whether influence was exercised through manipulation, coercion, or abuse of a position of power.

WESA Section 52: The Key Statutory Tool in British Columbia

In British Columbia, the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, particularly section 52, governs undue influence claims relating to wills.

Section 52 allows the court to infer undue influence where the nature of the relationship creates a potential for domination. Once the relationship meets that threshold, the burden shifts to the person seeking to uphold the will to prove that it was made freely.

Direct proof of coercion often is unavailable.. The court may rely on surrounding circumstances such as dependency, vulnerability, and control.

A Case Example: Dependency, Control, and Secret Transfers

A recent British Columbia decision, Beckman v. Vinci, 2026 BCSC 559 demonstrates how these principles apply. The claimant was a successful businessman suffering from Huntington’s disease. The defendant was his former personal assistant, who had hired. From the outset, their relationship became increasingly personal rather than strictly professional.

Between 2020 and April 2022, the plaintiff transferred approximately $5 million to the defendant and her children. Much of the money was used to purchase real property in their names. The defendant characterized the transfers as gifts. The claimant disputed that position and, in the alternative, argued that the court should set aside any gifts on the basis of undue influence.

The court’s analysis focused on the nature of the relationship. The claimant was vulnerable due to his illness. The defendant occupied a position of trust and had significant access to him through her role as his assistant. The relationship extended beyond professional duties and became personal in a way that increased the risk of influence.

The court found that the circumstances prevented the transfers from standing. Even if the payments were properly characterized as gifts, the court held that it would not permit the defendants to retain them because of undue influence.

Core Principles of Undue Influence

  • Vulnerability and dependency are central. Where one party relies on another for care, emotional support, or decision-making, the risk of undue influence increases significantly.
  • Undue influence does not require incapacity. A person may understand what they are doing and still act under the influence of another. Courts also scrutinize large or unusual benefits, particularly where they are unexplained or kept from family or advisors.
  • Undue influence is distinct from a claim under the Wills, Estates and Succession Act. It challenges the validity of the will itself. A wills variation claim accepts the will as valid but seeks a redistribution on fairness grounds.

When Should You Consider Challenging a Will in BC?

You should consider legal advice if you see:

  • Sudden or unexplained changes to a will
  • Isolation of the will-maker from family or trusted advisors
  • Transactions or gifts that were kept secret
  • Increasing dependency in the final years of life

Go to top