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, […]
This obligation can often be overwhelming and intimidating for many when dealing with a legal case. However, this is a common and essential aspect of serval legal matters, especially family or the process of wills variation. Financial disclosure for Wills Variation is providing information about the financial assets and liabilities of a deceased person’s estate […]
Background Justice Douglas refused to prejudge a wills variation claim on an interim application. In Rivers v. DeVouge, 2022 BCSC 2267, John Richter successfully defended an application brought by the plaintiff wife. The deceased husband prepared a new will and created an alter ego trust shortly before he died. He transferred many of the assets […]
In Parker v. Martin, 2017 BCSC 446, a chiropractor was injured while backing out of a parking stall. While he stopped to let a pedestrian walk by, another pickup truck that was also backing up bumped into his vehicle. Although it was a low speed accident, the plaintiff was injured as a result. The plaintiff […]
In Dizon v. Losier, 2017 BCSC 431, a plaintiff was injured after being rear-ended by the defendant. The accident occurred at an intersection with 2 left turning lanes and the plaintiff was attempting to make a left turn. While attempting to make the left turn the light changed to amber and the plaintiff, not believing […]
People always assume it is a good idea to put property or bank accounts in joint names with their spouses. They buy a house where they will live, and they put it in joint tenancy. They open a bank account so they can pay their bills, and they put it in joint names. Often, people […]
Common questions that people have in British Columbia estate law include: “Is a draft will legal” or “binding” or “valid”? This article attempts to give some guidance on how to answer those questions. In British Columbia, for a will to be valid, it must meet the requirements found in Section 37 of the Wills, Estates […]
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 […]
Since the introduction of the BC Family Law Act, the court has struggled with how a spouse may prove property is excluded. As explained in our blog Dividing Property in BC: The Proof is in the Puddin‘, the person who claims property is excluded has to show that it is excluded. The recent Court of Appeal […]
Mr. Justice Skolrood of the BC Supreme Court has ordered that he can step in where necessary and require parents to sign a consent form for Nexus passes. In Pasco v. Pasco, 2016 BCSC 2484, the mother lived in White Rock and the father was unwilling to provide consent for her to travel cross-border for […]
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 […]
Divorce or separation is a very stressful time BC couples’ lives. In most cases, it’s the most stressful thing you’ll ever have to deal with. In times of such excess stress, you or your ex might reach for the bottle. The question is: In divorce or separation proceedings in BC when does drinking (yours or […]
The goodfirm ICBC lawyers want to draw attention to a recent case involving a serious motorcycle accident. In Sundin v. Turnbull, 2017 BCSC 15, the young man was rear ended while riding his motorcycle outside of Kelowna. He thrown from the motorcycle and landed 15 feet away. The plaintiff had the good fortune of wearing […]
The goodfirm ICBC lawyers want to explain a recent car accident where a woman was struck at an unmarked intersection and found partially responsible. In Olson v. Farran, 2016 BCSC 1255, Mr. Justice Pearlman for the British Columbia Supreme Court found a plaintiff partially at fault for a crosswalk accident. Ms. O was walking to […]
Since March 2013, BC divorce lawyers dividing family property have been wrapping their heads around new legislation that was meant to be simpler, more intuitive and “better fit with people’s expectations of what is fair”(See the White Paper on Family Relations Reform Act) than the previous law. In theory, the new Family Law Act is […]
The goodfirm ICBC personal injury lawyers want to draw attention to a recent judgement from the BC Supreme Court where a plaintiff in a car accident had her award reduced for failing to mitigate. In Mullens v. Toor, 2016 BCSC 1645, Ms. M was injured on her drive home from work. Although her injuries were […]
The goodfirm ICBC lawyers want to draw attention to a recent case where ICBC was ordered to reinstate an injured person’s Part 7 Benefits after they were terminated by ICBC. In Prosofsky v. ICBC, 2016 BCSC 1586, a plaintiff brought a proceeding seeking reinstatement his Part 7 benefits. Part 7 benefits get their name from […]
CNN reported today that a woman somewhere in New York may serve her husband divorce papers via Facebook. A link to that story may be found here. In Canada, service via social networking sites is not a new concept and has been ordered on a number of occasions. For example, most recently in Eastview Properties […]
Vancouver personal injury lawyers read ICBC’s 2013 list of the top ten Lower Mainland car crash intersections with mixed feelings. As the following Supreme Court of Canada excerpt sets out, likelihood of harm is one measure of reasonable conduct when driving a motor vehicle. In other words, the greater the likelihood of harm, the more […]
In the recent WVA case of Reznik v. Matty, 2013 BCSC 1346 Mr. Justice Funt reviewed the law relating to the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The case involved an estate worth approximately $650,000 consisting of about $100,000 in cash or near cash and approximately $550,000 in real estate. The testator […]