Warning: Attempt to read property "ID" on null in /srv/users/serverpilot/apps/richtertriallaw-production/public/wp-content/themes/richter/archive.php on line 16

Blog Posts

Balancing a will maker’s autonomy with wills variation

A recent National Post article reporting on a decision involving variation of an unfair will has gotten significant media attention and generated numerous online comments. The article summarizes the decision of Grewal v. Litt, 2019 BCSC 1154, in which a mother’s will left 93% of her million dollar estate in the hands of her two sons while their four daughters received a paltry 7% despite contributing significantly to the family farm as children. Using the statutory authority to vary a will under BC’s Wills, Estates and Succession Act, the court redistributed the estate to give the daughters $1.35M and the sons $1.8M.

The article generated significant commentary on social media with many commentators remarking about “activist judges” interfering with private property rights. Some of the highlights include:

“Activist judges are now projecting their ideological pathologies on the indian community”

“Terrible decision. Your property is yours, and your last will & testament is a legal document that should not be meddled with by the courts. 
This is another example of a judge letting their personal social biases inappropriately affect a legal decision.”

“What right does the courts have to decide the distribution of assets when a will is clearly written. This is so wrong.”

“Super dangerous decision. While it seems wrong to most of us for the parents to decide to do that, it remains their prerogative to split their money as they wish. Plenty of people write certain family members out of their wills and I do not want a judge deciding to overturn someone’s wishes for their will.”

Does the court go too far in favouring “fairness” over private property rights? Is this the work of activist judges? What right does the court have to interfere? These are just some of the questions being asked.

The starting point for the discussion is the uniquely made in BC Wills, Estates and Succession Act and section 60 of the act which allows the court to vary a will that doesn’t adequately provide for a will-maker’s spouse or children:

60 Despite any law or enactment to the contrary, if a will-maker dies leaving a will that does not, in the court’s opinion, make adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of the will-maker’s spouse or children, the court may, in a proceeding on or behalf of the spouse or children, order that the provision that it thinks adequate, just and equitable in the circumstances be made out of the will-maker’s estate for the spouse or children.

The variation of wills in the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, mirror that of the former Wills Variation Act. In 2008-2009, the BC legislature undertook reformation of the patchwork of estate legislation in BC, including the Wills Act, Wills Variation Act, Estate Administration Act, Probate Recognition Act and portions of the Law and Equity Act. However, the power of the court to vary an unfair will under the above wording has been a part of the law in BC since 1920 when BC adopted New Zealand’s wills variation legislation in order to ameliorate some of the social issues caused by disenfranchisement (See McLachlan J’s comments in Tatyrn v. Tatyrn, [1994] 2 SCR 807).

Does this mean the court will intervene to vary any will that doesn’t give children or spouses an equal share? Not necessarily, but the wills variation provisions certainly limit the absolute right of a testator to dispose of their property. As the Supreme Court of Canada explained in Tatyrn:

“The Act did not remove the right of the legal owner of property to dispose of it upon death.  Rather, it limited that right.  The absolute testamentary autonomy of the 19th century was required to yield to the interests of spouses and children to the extent, and only to the extent, that this was necessary to provide the latter with what was “adequate, just and equitable in the circumstances.”  And if that testamentary autonomy must yield to what is “adequate, just and equitable”, then the ultimate question is, what is “adequate, just and equitable” in the circumstances judged by contemporary standards.  Once that is established, it cannot be cut down on the ground that the testator did not want to provide what is “adequate, just and equitable”.”

What does adequate, just and equitable mean? The court in Tatyrn refers to two societal norms that shape the meaning of the words. The court refers to legal and moral obligations a will-maker has to their spouse and children. Legal obligations would include an obligation to share family property with a spouse, and child/spousal support. Moral obligations include “society’s reasonable expectations of what a judicious person would do in the circumstances, by reference to contemporary community standards” (Tatyrn).

How far does the law go to limit that right? The Supreme Court in Tatyrn explained that there are number of options to divide assets in an estate in an “adequate, just and equitable” way. Where a will-maker’s estate distribution falls within the range of reasonable options, the court should not disturb it. In Tatyrn, McLachlan J specifically commented on the importance of testator autonomy and that it is not to be interfered with lightly:

“I add this.  In many cases, there will be a number of ways of dividing the assets which are adequate, just and equitable.  In other words, there will be a wide range of options, any of which might be considered appropriate in the circumstances.  Provided that the testator has chosen an option within this range, the will should not be disturbed.  Only where the testator has chosen an option which falls below his or her obligations as defined by reference to legal and moral norms, should the court make an order which achieves the justice the testator failed to achieve.  In the absence of other evidence a will should be seen as reflecting the means chosen by the testator to meet his legitimate concerns and provide for an ordered administration and distribution of his estate in the best interests of the persons and institutions closest to him.  It is the exercise by the testator of his freedom to dispose of his property and is to be interfered with not lightly but only in so far as the statute requires.”

Does a will-maker have a duty to provide for independent adult children?While many people accept a will-maker’s obligation to provide for a spouse or dependent adult children (such as those with a disability), what about independent adult children who are self sufficient? Since the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Tatyrn a sizeable body of law has developed around how to assess a will-maker’s moral obligation to provide for those independent adult children. To assess how strong the “moral duty” is to provide, the court in Dunsdon v. Dunsdon2012 BCSC 1274 set out a number of factors to consider, including:

  • the relationship between the testator and claimant, including abandonment, neglect and estrangement by one or the other;
  • size of the estate;
  • contributions by the claimant
  • reasonably held expectations of the claimant
  • standard of living of the testator and claimant
  • gifts ad benefits made by the testator outside the will
  • testator’s reasons for disinheriting
  • financial need and other personal circumstances, including disability of the claimant
  • misconduct or poor character of the claimant
  • competing claimants and other beneficiaries.

In light of the above, simply being a child of a will-maker does not automatically entitle a child to a proportionate share of the estate and the court retains discretion to find that a claimant may not be entitled to a variation of a will where they are financially independent or their estrangement from the will-maker is due to their own fault.

Unfair Wills and Testator Autonomy: Striking a Balance
August 1, 2019

Balancing a will maker’s autonomy with wills variation A recent National Post article reporting on a decision involving variation of an unfair will has gotten significant media attention and generated numerous online comments. The article summarizes the decision of Grewal v. Litt, 2019 BCSC 1154, in which a mother’s will left 93% of her million […]

The 411 on Section 211 Reports under the Family Law Act
July 6, 2019

The 411 on Section 211 Reports under the Family Law Act Section 211 reports are reports prepared by approved and qualified persons to help the court decide what the best interests of the children are for any orders. The “best interests of the children” are the foundation of any decision involving children under the Family […]

Proposed Changes to the Divorce Act on Relocation – Vancouver Family Lawyers
June 28, 2019

Vancouver Family Lawyers are here to explain how the recent changes to the Divorce Act will impact your ability to relocate with your child. The Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family surveyed lawyers and judges and over 98% of participants indicated that disputes involving issues regarding relocation are different to resolve. Bill C-78 […]

Failure to Comply is Fatal: Recent BC Supreme Court Decision on Document Production
June 23, 2019

Failure to Comply is Fatal: Recent BC Supreme Court Decision on Document Production When it comes to demanding documents in a civil lawsuit, failure to comply with the rules is fatal. Document production in BC Supreme Court is governed by Supreme Court Civil Rule 7-1(10), 7-1(11), and 7-1(12) and by Supreme Court Family Rule 9-1(7), […]

Wills Variation for Spouses under BC’s Wills, Estates and Succession Act
May 29, 2019

Wills Variation for Spouses under BC’s Wills, Estates and Succession Act Wills variation for spouses is a part of BC’s Wills, Estate and Succession Act. Section 60 of BC’s Wills, Estates and Succession Act provides that a spouse (including a common law spouse) may apply to vary a deceased person’s will where they do not […]

Accident Claims in BC: What you need to know about the new changes
May 1, 2019

Accident Claims in BC: What you need to know about the new changes On April 1, 2019, the BC government made changes to ICBC accident claims in the province. The largest change is the limitation of “minor injuries” to $5,500 and giving the Civil Resolution Tribunal exclusive power to hear claims for damages from motor […]

Tax Liabilities are Family Debt
April 24, 2019

CRA Debt and Family Debt: Whose responsible? A spouse’s CRA debt can be a significant issue in separation and divorce and a recent BC Supreme Court Decision of Neely v. Neely, 201F9 BCSC 610 found both spouses liable for tax debt incurred during the relationship. Under section 86 of the Family Law Act family debt […]

Is Gambling Debt Family Debt? New Supreme Court Family Ruling Explained
April 15, 2019

Are gambling debts the responsibility of both spouses? Gambling debt can be a tricky issue in Family Law. Section 87 of BC’s Family Law Act, specifically sets out what is “family debt”. Under section 86, family debt is any financial obligation incurred by either spouse during the relationship as well as any debt incurred after […]

Top 3 Family Law Resources for Self Represented Parties
April 5, 2019

Top 3 Family Law Self Help Resources Navigating a divorce or a family separation can be confusing, expensive and time consuming. If you can’t afford to get help with your legal issue, the problem can be compounded. If you can’t afford a lawyer, you should first check whether you qualify for legal aid in BC […]

Handwritten Will? The Court’s Power Under WESA to Cure Deficient Wills
March 29, 2019

Handwritten Will? The Court’s Power Under WESA to Cure Deficient Wills BC’s Wills, Estate and Succession Act (WESA), section 37, sets out the requirements to make a valid will in BC. However, sometimes a loved one may have written down their intentions for their estate without making a formal will that does not meet the […]

Excluded Property: The onus is on you – recent BCSC Decision
March 20, 2019

Excluded Property: The onus is on you – recent BCSC Decision While each spouse is generally entitled to equal division of family property under the Family Law Act property that spouses brought into the relationship is “excluded property”. Section 85 of the Act sets out what is “excluded property”. Inheritance, gifts from third parties, settlement […]

BC Court of Appeal confirms: unequal contributions not grounds to depart from presumption of equal division
March 7, 2019

BC Court of Appeal confirms: unequal contributions not grounds to depart from presumption of equal division BC’s Family Law Act requires family property to be divided equally unless it would be “significantly unfair”. Does the fact that one spouse under contributed financially qualify as “significant unfairness”? British Columbia’s top court has confirmed in Khan v. […]

BC Government makes changes to rules around expert evidence: the goodfirm explains
February 19, 2019

In an effort to rein in ICBC’s ballooning costs, the government recently made sweeping changes to the rules of expert evidence. Experts and expert reports are used to address the issue of damages that a plaintiff has suffered — such as wage loss, future wage loss and future care — that can be used by each side […]

Asset Division of Deceased Spouses – Vancouver Family Lawyers
January 18, 2019

You Has your ex-spouse passed away after you started a family action? Are you unsure of whether you are entitled to an asset division following your spouse’s passing? Contact experienced Vancouver Family Lawyers to navigate the most unusual and complex set of facts. Facts In a recent decision, Surrett v. Butkiewicz, 2018 BCSC 2194, the […]

Claiming Future loss of income earning capacity – Vancouver Personal Injury Lawyers
November 30, 2018

Vancouver personal injury lawyers can assist you with your future loss of income earning capacity claim. Facts A recent decision, Young v. Shao, 2018 BCSC 2017, is a good reminder of how to advance your claim for future loss of earning capacity. Said claim is determined by comparing the likely future of your working life […]

Retroactive Child Support Payments
November 5, 2018

Did you obtain a court order for your ex to pay child support in British Columbia? Is your ex still finding ways to avoid child support payments? Does your ex owe you retroactive child support payments? Is your ex intentionally under-employed? Is your ex seeking to vary or terminate a child support order?   Facts […]

How ‘excluded’ is your excluded property? Think twice before you share ownership of your property.
October 18, 2018

A recent decision, Venables v. Venables, 2018 BCSC 1736, explains how to divide family assets and debts following the breakdown of a relationship, where one party brought an excluded property into marriage and then shared said property ownership with his spouse. In this case the parties were married on August 1, 2009, and separated in […]

The Supreme Court of British Columbia may not have jurisdiction over your “birth tourism baby!”
October 8, 2018

In a recent decision, Kong v. Song, 2018 BCSC 1691, the Supreme Court of British Columbia determined that the habitual residence of a 2.5-year old child was not in Canada, which meant that the father had wrongfully removed the child from China and brought him to Canada.   Facts The child, Lucas, was born on […]

The Value of the Family Home: Date of Separation or Trial?
September 14, 2018

The value of the Family Home is a contentious issue in family law because it is often the family’s largest major asset. When the Family Home is registered either spouses’s name, it is considered family property under the Family Law Act. When spouses separate, section 81 of the Family Law Act gives each has a right to a half […]

Do you think you have a case for an unequal division of family property? Read this first.
August 30, 2018

Overview Following a relationship breakdown you might be wondering whether you have a claim for an unequal division of family property. An order for an unequal division of family property or debt occurs when a 50/50 split of the family assets and debts would create unfair circumstances for one of the parties. These types of […]

Go to top