When family dynamics and estate administration collide, the consequences can be both emotionally and legally complex. In Virdi Estate (Re), 2025 BCSC 689, the Supreme Court of British Columbia recently considered whether a son could act as executor while asserting a significant financial claim against his late father's estate.
The decision sheds light on how courts approach conflicts of interest in estate litigation — and offers valuable lessons for estate planners, litigators, and financial advisors alike. This case also serves as a cautionary tale on the importance of selecting truly impartial executors, especially when family members are also potential creditors.
The dispute
The Testator passed away in July 2023, leaving behind a 1995 Will naming one of his four children as alternate executor (the "Executor"). The Estate, worth approximately $1.56 million, included a family home and financial assets. Following the Testator's death, the Executor presented a more recent Will from 2019, under which he would have been the sole beneficiary. His siblings challenged the validity of the document, alleging it was fraudulent, which led the Executor to revert to probating the earlier 1995 Will.
However, the dispute did not end there. The Executor produced a promissory note dated 1993, claiming their father owed him $110,000 plus interest. Two of the siblings, SL and PV, contested the note's legitimacy, raising concerns about its timing, the font used, the credibility of the witnesses, and their father's well-know aversion to debt. They argued the note had been fabricated to secure a larger portion of the estate. SL subsequently applied to have the Executor passed over as executor on the basis that his financial claim created a disqualifying conflict of interest. The Court agreed.
The legal framework for passing over an executor
Under sections 158 and 159 of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, and section 31 of the Trustee Act, the court has authority to remove or pass over an executor and appoint a substitute. Courts also rely on their inherent jurisdiction to ensure estates are administered fairly and in the best interests of all beneficiaries. The following key principles guide the court's discretion:
- The testator's choice of executor is respected but not absolute;
- There must be clear evidence that the executor's appointment jeopardizes the proper administration of the estate;
- The welfare of the beneficiaries is the court's foremost concern; and
- Conflicts of interest that endanger the estate or create legitimate distrust among beneficiaries may justify removal.
A notable reference in the decision was Bringeland Estate (Re), 2024 BCSC 1546, where the Court outlined non-exhaustive factors to assess whether a conflict amounts to disqualification. These include the transparency of the executor's claim, the size and timing of the claim, opposition from other beneficiaries, and whether the claim hampers estate administration.
Why the Court passed over the executor
Justice Norell concluded that the Executor's claim created a direct and irreconcilable conflict. If he were to proceed with his claim, he would effectively be acting as both plaintiff and defendant—pursuing the claim against the estate in his personal capacity while also representing the estate as executor. Although the Executor proposed holding back funds to secure the disputed amount, the Court found this inadequate. The core issue was not security, but impartiality. Because the Executor's actions had already caused significant distrust and had the potential to delay or disrupt the estate's administration, the Court passed him over and appointed SL as personal representative and trustee.
The Court also dismissed arguments that SL was similarly conflicted due to a previous claim she had filed (and later discontinued) against the estate. That claim had not progressed, and any resulting liability was minor and speculative compared to the Executor's ongoing and substantial debt claim.
Key takeaway
Virdi Estate (Re) underscores the importance of neutrality and trustworthiness in estate administration. While the law defers to the testator's chosen executor, it will not do so at the expense of proper and impartial estate management. Executors who assert personal claims against the estate must be prepared to step aside to preserve the integrity of the process. This decision is a compelling reminder: the appearance of fairness is just as crucial as the fact of it in estate matters. Legal advisors and families alike should carefully consider whether a proposed executor may face conflicts that could compromise their duties.
Connect with our Estate Litigation team
If you or your clients are navigating complex estate disputes or have concerns about potential conflicts of interest in estate administration, the Estate and Trusts Litigation Group at Miller Thomson can help. Our team combines deep legal expertise with a practical understanding of family dynamics to provide strategic advice and effective representation.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
