The wife of the deceased sought variation of his will under the WVA asserting it did not make adequate, just and equitable provision for her. The will had been drafted September 24, 2003 and the testator died September 7, 2013 (pre-WESA). The plaintiff was the second wife of the deceased, but their relationship had lasted approximately 34 years. The plaintiff had two children from her first marriage. The deceased had four children from his first marriage.
The petitioner, Debi, sought a determination pursuant to s. 58 of WESA whether the signed document of her deceased father, Larry, dated February 7, 2016, represented his intentions to replace his Will dated August 11, 2015. The petition was not opposed. This case was another example which highlighted the use of the s. 58 curative provisions of WESA to assist the court in determining an individuals' wishes after death.
In this case, the judge took an open-minded approach in addressing whether or not a couple had been “common-law” in the eyes of the law. Mr. Chambers applied for a declaration that he was the “spouse” of Ms. Connor, within the meaning of s. 2 of WESA, although they were not legally married, did not live together and did not have any children. Ms. Connor did not have any children and she was predeceased by both her parents and her only full sibling. The application was opposed by Ms. Connor’s five half-siblings, which Ms. Connor had never met.
Upon the death of Patricia Burns, a number of legal issues arose relating to her sizable estate valued more than $2.5 Million. Her daughter, Leslie Davis, brought an action under s. 60 of WESA alleging that her mother’s will did not make adequate provision for her, the only child. Additionally, Brent Dale brought an application under WESA for the payment of an interim distribution of $250,000 from the estate as he was a beneficiary under the will. The largest asset of the estate had been a house located in Vancouver and was sold in February of 2016. Patricia had left two wills: one that was dated October 2010 and another from 2005.
In 2003, Sheikh Salem Homoud Al-Jaber Al-Sabah passed away intestate and left 15 beneficiaries. His family has since been caught up in estate litigation across several countries as he held properties in Kuwait, Gibraltar, London, and B.C. His beneficiaries included his two sons, his two wives, and his seven daughters. While two of his daughters did not participate in this litigation, one, Sheikha Salem Homoud Al-Jaber Al-Sabah, is the appellant in this action. She sought to appeal an order from an application revoking the grant of letters of administration of her father’s estate (located in B.C.). The chambers judge had found the daughter had not exercised reasonable diligence in providing notice to the beneficiaries of her intention to apply for administration of the estate in BC and she had failed to disclose relevant information.
The testator left behind an estate worth over $2 million and his will detailed it be divided into two shares, one to his son absolutely and the income of the other to his wife for life, then to be divided among her son’s living children upon her death. The wife brought an application to vary the will as she felt the will failed to adequately address the legal obligations to her. The couple had been married for 53 years and their finances had been intimately entwined.
The litigation had been commenced many years ago in 2003 and had essentially been sitting stagnant as no substantial steps had been taken to move the matter forward. The plaintiff, the wife of the deceased, had begun the action after her husband’s death in 2002 and the action was brought ahead after her subsequent death in 2015. The action was brought by the plaintiff’s personal representative and the claim sought variation of the late husband’s will as it did not make adequate, just and equitable provision for her.Importantly, since the testator’s death, the plaintiff had been living in the matrimonial home and the executors of the estate, the testator’s children, had been providing some money from the estate to assist the plaintiff’s living situation.
The petitioners, the sons of the deceased, applied to remove the executor and trustee under the last will of their father. With their application, they also sought an order appointing them as executors and trustees in substitution of the respondent. The respondent, the widow, sought a number of orders. After isolating the issue, the court granted the respondent’s application to remove her and place them in the position of executor and trustee of their father’s estate.
The Plaintiff, the 25 year old daughter of the deceased, brought an application, by way of summary trial under Rule 9-7, seeking an order varying the will of her mother. Her mother had left the residue of the estate, consisting of annuity payments under structured settlement, to her husband with intention that he would provide for her daughter out of the residue at his discretion. The deceased had passed away June 1, 2013, prior to Part 4 of the new Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13 [WESA] coming into force. Therefore, the court’s power to vary the will derived from the former provisions of the Wills Variation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, at ss. 2 and 5.
The Deceased’s Will named a niece as Executor and sole beneficiary of the estate. Through the regular path, the named niece brought an application for probate and was issued a grant. The Deceased’s nephew then brought an action against the niece in her personal capacity, and in the capacity as executor, challenging the will claiming the Deceased lacked testamentary capacity and was unduly influenced by the niece. The nephew sought an order that the will was invalid and damages for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit. The niece also sought an order including one under s. 86 of the Trustee Act for advice and directions respecting management or administration of trust property and that she was entitled to use estate funds to defend the civil action.
Candace Yates sought determination pursuant to s. 58 of WESA whether the unsigned, draft will of Jann Louise MacInnis Bailey, dated December 2014, represented her intentions to replace or alter her last will and testament dated January 29, 2008.
Ms. Cates was Ms. Bailey’s lawyer and had drafted the will of 2008 and drafted the unsigned will of 2014. She is the named executrix in the 2008 will and the co-executor in the 2014 draft will and requires the court’s determination otherwise she is unable to swear the affidavit required of an executor under the Supreme Court Rules for probate.
Ms. Cates’ position is that the 2014 draft will, in whole or in part, represents the testamentary intention of Ms. Bailey.
The testator died February 1, 2012 at age 85 and left behind a wife and a number of adult children from two marriages. The children from his first marriage sought variation of the will pursuant to s. 2 of the Wills Variation Act and a declaration that Betty Sim (Mrs. Sim), the executrix and trustee of the estate, holds a Peachland property in trust for the estate. The Peachland property had originally been in their step-mother's family (subsequently purchased by her) and had an estimated value of ~$760,000. The court weighed in on whether or not this property formed part of the deceased's estate.