Surviving Spouses and the Family Home: The Significance of Boisvert Estate, 2026 BCSC 195

One of the most difficult situations in estate litigation arises when a person dies without a will and the estate’s primary asset is the family home. The surviving spouse may have lived in the property for decades, yet the intestacy provisions of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act (“WESA”) can result in other beneficiaries acquiring interests in the property. When there are insufficient liquid assets to satisfy those interests, a sale of the home may appear inevitable.

The British Columbia Supreme Court recently addressed this issue in Boisvert Estate, 2026 BCSC 195. The decision provides important guidance on the operation of s. 33 of WESA and demonstrates the Court’s willingness to protect a surviving spouse’s ability to remain in the family home where fairness requires it.

Background

The deceased died intestate, leaving behind her common-law spouse and two adult children from a previous relationship. The estate’s principal asset was the home in which the deceased and her spouse had resided together for many years.

Under the intestacy scheme set out in WESA, the surviving spouse was entitled to a significant share of the estate. However, the value of the spouse’s entitlement was insufficient to allow him to acquire full ownership of the property without compensating the deceased’s children for their interests.

The practical difficulty was that the surviving spouse did not have the financial resources necessary to purchase the children’s shares. If the property were sold, he would lose the home and community connection he had maintained for decades.

Section 33 of WESA

Section 33 provides a mechanism through which a surviving spouse may apply to the court for ownership of the spousal home. The provision allows the court to vest title in the spouse and make corresponding orders to account for the interests of other beneficiaries.

Prior to Boisvert Estate, there was little judicial guidance regarding how courts should exercise this discretion. The case therefore offered the Court an opportunity to clarify the purpose and application of the provision.

The Court’s Analysis

The Court emphasized that s. 33 is intended to address situations where strict application of the intestacy rules would create an unfair result. Rather than focusing solely on mathematical entitlement, the provision allows the Court to consider the real-world consequences of forcing a sale of the family residence.

Several considerations influenced the Court’s decision, including:

  • the surviving spouse’s long-term occupation of the property;
  • the absence of sufficient estate assets to satisfy all beneficiaries without affecting the home;
  • the financial hardship that would result if the spouse were required to purchase the property outright;
  • the relative prejudice to the spouse compared with the prejudice to the children; and
  • the spouse’s connection to the home and surrounding community.

The Court ultimately concluded that it was appropriate to transfer ownership of the property to the surviving spouse while protecting the children’s interests through a charge registered against the property.

Rather than ordering an immediate sale, the Court vested title to the home in the surviving spouse. The children’s inheritance interests were preserved through a secured charge against the property, with payment deferred for a period of time. This approach allowed the spouse to remain in the home while ensuring that the children retained the economic value of their inheritance.

Why the Decision Matters

Boisvert Estate is significant because it confirms that courts have meaningful flexibility when dealing with spousal home applications under WESA. The decision recognizes that the family home often carries emotional, practical, and financial significance beyond its market value.

For surviving spouses, the case provides reassurance that the loss of a home is not an automatic consequence of intestacy. For estate practitioners, it offers a framework for assessing future applications under s. 33 and balancing competing interests among beneficiaries.

The decision also serves as a reminder of the importance of estate planning. While WESA provides mechanisms to address difficult circumstances, a properly drafted will remains the most effective way to avoid uncertainty, expense, and litigation after death.

Go to top