What if you are a beneficiary under a will, and you have concerns about the person named as executor in that will? Maybe you believe the named executor is in a conflict of interest or may not treat the beneficiaries with an even hand (especially if the will allows for the exercise of some discretion by the executor). Maybe you suspect that the named executor will engage in impropriety or misconduct once they obtain a grant of probate. Maybe you simply do not get along with the named executor. At what point is it appropriate to ask that the court pass over a person as executor or administrator of an estate?
The Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, Chapter 13 [“WESA”] allows for a person having an interest in an estate to apply to remove or pass over a personal representative. To “pass over” means to grant probate or administration to a person who has less priority than another person to become a personal representative. This means passing over a named executor where there is a will, or passing over the person entitled to become administrator if there is an intestacy (no will).
The court may pass over a person entitled to become the personal representative if the court considers that the person should not be granted probate or administration. Section 158 of WESA includes a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that the court may consider. Some of them are clear, such as if the person refuses to accept the position, or is incapable of managing his or her own affairs, or has been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty.
Subsection 158(3)(f) is more general, and allows the court to consider whether the person is (1) unable to make the decisions necessary to discharge the office of personal representative, (2) not responsive, or (3) otherwise unwilling or unable to or unreasonably refuses to carry out the duties of a personal representative, to an extent that the conduct of the personal representative hampers the efficient administration of the estate.
The court will consider the following principles when deciding whether to pass over an executor named in a will:
- Recognize that the testator’s choice of estate trustee should not be lightly disregarded. A deceased’s right to nominate his executors is not to be lightly interfered with;
- Require clear evidence of necessity;
- Focus on the main consideration of the welfare of the beneficiaries; and
- Require proof that the executor’s acts or omissions are of such a nature as to endanger the administration of the estate.
In the recent case of Gawdun v. Lord 2020 BCSC 266, the court considered an application to pass over the person named as executor of the deceased’s will. The deceased and the proposed executor (“Ms. Lord”) were in a common law relationship at the date of death. The applicants were the deceased’s children from a previous marriage.
The plaintiffs argued that Ms. Lord should be passed over for the following reasons:
- The plaintiffs doubted that Ms. Lord would maintain an even hand between her own children and the plaintiffs, all of whom were residuary beneficiaries;
- The plaintiffs alleged that Ms. Lord had continually demonstrated hostility and animosity towards them and the deceased’s sister (who was named as co-executor);
- The plaintiffs alleged that Ms. Lord was involved in the deceased’s estate planning in 2010 and 2011, which resulted in the execution of the will providing the majority of the estate to Ms. Lord and her children, which conduct was at issue in an underlying wills variation application;
- The plaintiffs alleged that Ms. Lord offered to pay the deceased’s sister $50,000 from the estate during the course of the action which the plaintiffs found suspicious;
- Foreclosure proceedings had been initiated to recover funds owing to the estate, which was being funded entirely by the plaintiffs, and Ms. Lord had refused to assist in collecting the debt owing; and
- The plaintiffs alleged Ms. Lord entered into a share exchange agreement as attorney for the deceased. The terms of the share exchange agreement were alleged to have conferred an improper benefit on Ms. Lord.
The court dismissed the application, concluding that passing over Ms. Lord was not justified. There was no evidence demonstrating misconduct by Ms. Lord that was capable of supporting a decision to pass her over. Even if the court accepted there was misconduct as alleged, it is past misconduct and was not done in her capacity as executor.
If may be difficult to convince a judge that a person will endanger the welfare of the beneficiaries or commit misconduct as executor or administrator before they have even been appointed. If you have concerns about the person who is entitled to be personal representative, but don’t believe that you can succeed with an application to pass over, you may also bring an application remove and replace a personal representative if those concerns become a reality. This will be discussed in an upcoming post.