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
Cultural traditions play a significant role in shaping family dynamics and inheritance practices across communities. For example, it’s well-known that many cultures tend to exhibit a preference for sons over daughters in various aspects of family life, including inheritance. When these traditions conflict with the principles of equality and fairness enshrined in Canadian law, however, the courts may intervene.
The case of Prakash v. Singh 2006 BCSC 1545 (“Prakash”) serves as a poignant example of how the court applies wills variation law in the face of contentious cultural traditions. In particular, this case concerns the unequal treatment of sons and daughters in South Asian families. In Prakash, the will of the deceased entitled each of the three daughters to only $10,000 from the estate, while it entitled each of the two brothers to $275,000.
Many Indo-Canadian women may choose not to challenge unequal inheritance practices like this due to a fear of straining family ties. This may explain why one sister in Prakash waived her claim. Fortunately, the two other sisters elected to pursue a wills variation claim. The claim produced a landmark decision on the intersection of individual rights, cultural expectations, and the legal obligation to provide adequately for the family members in a will.
Section 60 of the Wills, Estates, and Succession Act, SBC Chapter 13 empowers the court to intervene if a will fails to make adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of the will-maker’s spouse or children. This requires the courts to consider the moral responsibility of a testator to support their dependents in addition to the well-established – and sometimes competing – principle of testamentary autonomy when analysing such variation claims.
What exactly does “adequate provision” mean? The court in Tataryn v Tataryn Estate,  2 S.C.R. 807 attempted to answer this question, highlighting important factors such as the relationship between the testator and the claimant, the size of the estate, contributions by the claimant, and the testator’s reasons for disinheritance. Overall, the court has broad discretion to make an assessment, but should consider both the specific circumstances of the family and modern values and expectations.
In the case of Prakash, the court rejected the traditional cultural norm of favoring sons over daughters as a justification for inadequate provisions for daughters. The court applied the law with Canadian moral and social norms in mind. Recognizing Canada’s commitment to gender equality, the court decided to vary the will to ensure the daughters were adequately provided for. This judgment emphasizes that gender-based disparities in inheritance are incompatible with the Canadian values of equality and non-discrimination protected by law.
It’s important to note that, while the legal system strives for fairness, this doesn’t necessarily mean that each beneficiary will receive an equal share of an estate. As mentioned above, the court acknowledges that each family has its unique dynamics and circumstances to consider. For instance, the court in Prakash recognized the sons’ unparalleled financial and familial contributions to their mother throughout her life which influenced her decision to favor them in her will. This resulted in the court varying the will to provide 20% of the estate to the two plaintiff daughters, and 30% of the estate to the two sons. The decision increased the sisters’ inheritances by over $100,000 each, but still left each son with $58,000 more than the daughters.
Despite a testator’s desire to follow cultural traditions, they must comply with their legal obligations imposed by provincial statute when creating their will. The law is clear that testators cannot use cultural traditions as a shield to perpetuate gender-based disparities in inheritance, illustrating the courts’ commitment to upholding the Canadian values of equality and justice. As the multicultural identity of Canada continues to develop, legal frameworks will likely also adapt and change to address the complex relationship between cultural traditions and the pursuit of fairness in estate planning.
About the Author
Emma Wright, JD is a 2023 graduate of the Peter A. Allard School of Law at UBC. She is currently completing her articles at Richter Trial Lawyers with a specialization in wills variation claims. As a B.A. Anthropology graduate from Western University, she developed a passion for research, advocacy, and creative problem-solving. This inspired her to pursue a law degree. During her time at Allard School of Law, she gained practical experience working at the Law Student’s Legal Advice Program (“LSLAP”) Clinic, where she helped low-income community members with human rights, small claims, and residential tenancy cases. In addition, Emma successfully completed the Allan McEachern Advanced Trial Advocacy Program. This rigorous program gave her the chance to practice litigation skills and gain valuable feedback from senior lawyers and judges of the British Columbia Supreme Court. She was taught the importance of being a zealous advocate, and hopes to have more opportunities to assume this role throughout her articling period and beyond.
Introduction Cultural traditions play a significant role in shaping family dynamics and inheritance practices across communities. For example, it’s well-known that many cultures tend to exhibit a preference for sons over daughters in various aspects of family life, including inheritance. When these traditions conflict with the principles of equality and fairness enshrined in Canadian law, […]
Richter Trial Lawyers is happy to welcome our newest addition, Emma Wright, beginning September 2023. Emma will be joining us as an articling student. Emma grew up in Ottawa, ON. She started her academic journey when she moved to London, ON, where she received her B.A. with honours at Western University. Recently, she graduated with […]
General Information Once you’ve confirmed you have the most recent will, you must confirm you’re named executor. As an executor, you must always obey the law and the terms of the will. Additionally, there can be more than one executor or administrator of the will. Essentially, your job and responsibility are to carry out the […]
Fighting over Fluffy: Who Gets to Keep the Family Pet? For many people, the family pet is considered a living breathing member of the family. In some cases they are better behaved than most family litigants. Although the Court has been known to make interim custody orders for a motorcycle (Krczizanowski v Fieseler, 2018 BCSC […]
A recent judgment out of the Supreme Court of British Columbia by Mr. Justice Butler, sheds some more light on what makes a witness credible. Ponsart v. Kong 2017 BCSC 1126, involved a claim for injuries arising out of three car accidents. Before assessing damages and compensation, Mr. Justice Butler was tasked with determining who was at […]
Between 2010 and 2014, over 81 people a year have been killed due to distracted driving. While it may seem harmless to fire off a quick text, the reality is responding to a text means your eyes are off the road for an average of 5 seconds. An accident can happen in a split second […]
In Binette v. Salmon Arm (City), 2017 BCSC 302, a women brought a suit against the city of Salmon Arm after she tripped on a metal traffic sign that was poking out the sidewalk. A crosswalk sign had been severed from its base and had remained in the sidewalk. It was later repaired sometime after […]
Spousal support orders are made on three bases: Compensatory. To compensate a spouse for their role in the relationship and sacrifices they made during the relationship for the betterment of the spouses’ lives. Non-Compensatory or Needs-Based. To ensure that one spouse does not suffer the consequences of sacrifices made during the relationship more than the […]
A recent court of appeal decision makes it clear that evidence of a full and complete gift (rather than resulting trust) does not necessarily mean a “deed of gift”. The recent court of appeal case regarding the McKendry Estate involved Mary McKendry (deceased), her 5 children (4 daughters 1 son), and the Vancouver property purchased by […]
In Andrew Peller Ltd. v. Mori Essex Nurseries Inc., 2017 BCSC 203, a BC Wine company sued an Ontario grape company alleging that they had been sold defective grape vines. As the issue was proceeding to trial, the Ontario based companies applied to court in British Columbia to transfer the proceedings to Ontario as the […]
Watch this video posted on Facebook by the Daily Mail which shows that a new car could save your life in an accident: Crashing cars What a 1997 car crash looks like compared to now! Posted by Daily Mail on Saturday, February 4, 2017 This video posted on Daily Mail’s Facebook page shows how driving […]
A recent BC case illustrates the difficulty faced by self represented litigants at trial. In Uppal v. Chung, 2017 BCSC 80, Mr. U was injured in two accidents, one of which caused serious disruption to his life. Liability was at issue in both accidents and Mr. U’s ability to receive any damages depended on establishing […]
The goodfirm ICBC lawyers want to show the consequences of failing to dispute a ticket within the required time limits. In Fraser v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2016 BCSC 2427, a new driver was given a 5 month driving prohibition after failing to dispute two tickets. The prohibition had severe consequences. The Tickets […]
The snow in Vancouver was responsible for over 4,300 calls to ICBC over damage and accidents from the road conditions. With roads in the lower mainland covered in slush and snow, the goodfirm ICBC car accident lawyers want to extend a warning to take extra caution on the roads this year in order to avoid […]
The goodfirm ICBC lawyers want to draw attention to a recent BC Supreme court case where a plaintiff’s failure to undergo a doctor recommended treatment program resulted in a reduction of the plaintiff’s award. In Lally v. He, 2016 BCSC 2187, a plaintiff’s award of damages was reduced for failing to attend a rehab program […]
We talk about court-ordered costs in our blog here: What are court ordered costs? The usual rule in family cases is found in Supreme Court Family Rule 16-1 where it is presumed that the costs of a family law case must be awarded to the successful party unless the court otherwise orders. Some lawyers have […]
The goodfirm ICBC car accident lawyers want to share these 5 key steps to take if you are injured in a car accident. 1. Try and get as much information about the other driver as possible. Any time you’re injured in a car accident, it’s important to exchange information with the other driver. Its best […]
The goodfirm ICBC personal injury lawyers want to draw the public’s attention to a recent personal injury case in the Supreme Court of British Columbia involving the birth of a child and litigation over €œin-trustâ€ claims of the child’s parents and grandparents. In the recent case of Crossman v. Boiley 2016 BCSC 1437, a couple’s […]
Don’t go it alone: A cautionary tale of self-representation at the BC Supreme Court in motor vehicle cases Richter Trial Lawyers, the goodfirm ICBC car accident lawyers want to share a recent case from the BC Supreme Court reiterating the dangers of opting to “go it alone” at trial. In Mather v. MacDonald 2016 BCSC […]