What Happens When Courts Remove Co-Executors in High Conflict Estates?

The British Columbia Supreme Court’s decision in Phagura v. Frenette, 2026 BCSC 912, is a significant reminder that courts will intervene where conflict between co-executors prevents the proper administration of an estate.

The case involved a deeply divided family dispute following the death of a mother whose estate plan relied on two of her daughters acting together as co-executors and attorneys. Although courts generally respect a deceased person’s choice of executor, the Court ultimately concluded that the sisters’ conflict had become too entrenched for them to administer the estate impartially and efficiently. As a result, the Court appointed an independent third-party administrator: BMO Trust Company.

Background

The deceased had four children: three daughters and one son. The parties to the proceeding were the eldest daughters. Their father had predeceased the deceased in December 2021. Under a February 2016 will, the deceased divided the residue of her estate equally among her four children and appointed the parties as alternate joint co-executors. The parties were also named as joint attorneys under a December 2016 enduring power of attorney.

The estate dispute arose against the backdrop of significant family tension regarding both the administration of the estate and gifts allegedly made by the deceased during her lifetime. Beginning in March 2025, the deceased was hospitalized following a stroke. After suffering a second stroke, she was unable to return home and later moved into long-term care in September 2025. She passed away in October 2025.

During the deceased’s hospitalization and after her move into care, two grandchildren, the sons of the respondent and another sister, moved into the deceased’s home, which was the estate’s principal asset. The estate reportedly paid some of their expenses while they continued living there after the deceased’s death.

The parties also disputed several substantial inter vivos gifts allegedly made by the deceased before her death. These included:

  • an alleged $50,000 gift to the petitioner;
  • gifts for travel and expenses;
  • $50,000 allegedly provided to the brother; and
  • cheques totalling approximately $420,000 allegedly distributed among the respondent, another daughter, and their respective children in May and August 2025.

The petitioner argued that the estate’s interests required the sale of the home. The respondent disagreed.

The litigation centred on competing applications regarding who should administer the estate.

The petitioner sought an order: passing over the respondent as co-executor and appointing herself as sole executor due to an alleged conflict of interest. The respondent opposed that request and instead sought an order: passing over both sisters and appointing an independent trust company as estate administrator because the parties could no longer work together. Alternatively, the respondent argued that both sisters should remain as joint co-executors. The sibling divisions extended into the litigation itself. The brother supported the petitioner, while the third sister supported the respondent.

The Court’s Decision

The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner’s primary request to act as sole executor.

Instead, the Court granted the respondent’s alternative relief by:

  • passing over both sisters as estate representatives; and
  • appointing BMO Trust Company as independent estate administrator and trustee.

The Court found that the evidence demonstrated the deceased intended for all four children to benefit fairly from the estate and would not have wanted ongoing conflict over money and administration. Although appointing a neutral third party departed from the deceased’s original choice of executors, the Court concluded it was the most practical and fair solution in the circumstances.

Importantly, the Court accepted that a neutral administrator would create additional expense for the estate and future disputes might still occur.

However, the Court held that administration by an independent trustee would likely be less contentious, more efficient, and no more costly than continued administration by either sister alone or both sisters together.

The Court also ordered that both parties’ reasonable indemnity costs be paid from the estate, recognizing that the litigation was necessary because the joint executor arrangement had become unworkable.

Key Legal Principles

1. Courts Prioritize Proper Estate Administration

While courts generally try to honour a deceased’s choice of executor, that principle is not absolute. The overriding concern is whether the estate can be administered properly and in the interests of all beneficiaries. Where conflict between executors undermines the administration process, the Court may intervene.

2. Executors Must Be Able to Work Together

This case illustrates that co-executorship requires cooperation, impartiality, and practical decision-making. Where hostility creates deadlock, inefficiency, distrust, or ongoing litigation, the Court may determine that the executors are no longer suitable to continue acting.

3. Neutral Administrators Are Increasingly Common in Family Estate Disputes

In contentious estate matters involving family members, courts are increasingly willing to appoint professional trust companies or independent administrators to reduce conflict and preserve estate assets. Although professional administration increases administrative costs, courts may consider those costs justified where they reduce prolonged litigation and dysfunction.

Conclusion

Phagura v. Frenette, 2026 BCSC 912 reinforces an important principle of estate law: the efficient and impartial administration of an estate takes precedence over the deceased’s original choice of executors where those executors can no longer function together.

Faced with entrenched family conflict, competing allegations about gifts and estate assets, and an inability of the co-executors to cooperate, the Court concluded that appointing an independent professional administrator was the best way to protect the estate and the beneficiaries alike.

Go to top