WILLS AND ESTATES

Passing Over/Removing an Executor Trustee

Trevor Todd

One of the most common enquiries in estate litigation relates to the beneficiaries’ dissatisfaction with the named executor/ trustee and their intention to either pass over or remove him or her.

Passing over or removing an executor/trustee is very often a difficult task to achieve as the law has been clear for many years that the deceased’s right to nominate his or her executor is not to be lightly interfered with: Re Wolfe (1957) 7 DLR (2d) 215 at 219 (BCCA).

Passing over an executor utilizes essentially the same legal criteria as removing an executor except that a passing over occurs before the named executor starts to act in a representative capacity. Section 158 of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act [SBC 2009] c. 13 (“WESA”) Section 158 is a new provision where persons interested in the estate, including beneficiaries, intestate heirs, creditors, and co-executors can apply to remove or pass over a person entitled to be the personal representative.

It must be noted that removal as a personal representative does not remove the person as a trustee, as the latter must be done under the Trustee Act. Whereas most personal representatives are named as the executor and trustee of the will, (or are Court- appointed administrators), there is a distinction between the two roles of executor and trustee that can become important when applying to pass over or remove a personal representative, such as an executor.

A person having an interest in an estate may apply to the Court to remove or pass over a person otherwise entitled to be or to become a personal representative.

Section 158(1) defines pass over to mean grant of probate or administration to a person who has less priority than another person to become a personal representative.

A person having an interest in an estate may apply to the Court to remove or pass over a person otherwise entitled to be or to become a personal representative.

Section 158(3) codified some of the common law decisions by setting out some of the criteria that the Court may consider in adjudicating an application to either pass over or remove a personal representative such as the named executor as follows: a) refusal to accept the office of or to act as personal representative without renouncing the office; b) is incapable of managing his or her own affairs; c) purports to resign from the office of personal representative; d) being a Corporation, is dissolved during liquidation; e) has been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty; i) is an undischarged bankrupt f) is i) unable to make the decisions necessary to discharge the office of personal representative; ii) not responsive, or iii) otherwise unwilling or unable to or unreasonably refuses to carry out the duties of a personal representative.

The aforesaid criteria must show that the personal representative is hampering the efficient administration of the estate, or a person granted power over financial affairs under the Patients Property Act (RSBC 1996) c.349. Section 159 WESA Section 159 of WESA is also a new provision that states that if the Court discharges or removes a personal representative, the Court must appoint

another person who consents to act as the substitute personal representative, unless the administration of the estate is completed or the Court does not consider it necessary that a new appointment be made. Cases Involving Passing Over In Re. Thomasson Estate, 2011 BCSC 481, the Court passed over the named executor by reason of personal conflict of interest.

The Court stated that the application was not to remove the executor but simply to pass over him so that an enquiry can be undertaken of the transfer of the property to him and his wife by the deceased in 2006, and a determination can be made if any further actions need be taken in regards to the property.

There was a perceived conflict of interest between the named executor in his role as an executor and his interest in his personal capacity regarding the property transfer that was being challenged and he was passed over.

In Re. Haggerty Estate 21 WWR 85 BCCA, a grant was refused where the named executor had within the last year been convicted of a crime involving misappropriation of estate funds.

The Court stated that while a testator’s choice of executor should not be lightly interfered with, this was a proper case where discretion should be exercised by refusing the grant to the named executor. The Court discussed a long line of authorities that state that evidence of bad character alone is not a sufficient ground for refusing a grant.

However, in Re. Oughton, 40 ETR 296, Oughton, a notorious sex offender who was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence was not passed over as executor on the basis that his circumstances were not sufficient to justify passing him over.

In Stadelmier v. Hoffman 25 ETR 174, however, the Court passed over 1 of 4 named executors where the other 3 intended to bring action against the fourth on the basis of undue influence with respect to some large inter vivos gifts. The Court exercised its discretion to pass over due to the position of actual conflict that the fourth executor was in. He could not in his capacity of executor attack the gift to himself, while at the same time, maintain in his personal capacity that the gifts were proper. Removal of an Executor/Trustee Courts are hesitant to interfere with the testator’s right to nominate his or her executor.

The Court does, however, have both a statutory power under section 31 of the Trustee Act, RSBC 1996, c. 464, and an inherent power to remove or pass over a trustee or executor: Mardesic v. Vukovich Estate (1988), 30 BCLR (2d) 170 (BCSC); Seaton Estate, Re, 2003 BCCA 555 (BCCA).

In fact, in Crawford v. Jardine (1997) OJ No. 5041 at para. 18, the Court stated that removal of an estate trustee should only occur on the clearest of evidence that there is no other course to follow. The Court further stated that it is not every mistake or neglect of duty on the part of the trustees that will lead to the removal. It must be shown by the applicant that the non-removal of the trustee will likely prevent the trust from being properly executed. Section 31 of the Trustee Act (RSBC 1996) c. 464 If it is expedient to appoint a new trustee and it is found inexpedient, difficult, or impracticable to do so without the assistance of the Court, it is lawful for the Court to make an order appointing a new trustee or trustees, whether there is an existing trustee or not at the time of making the order, and either in substitution for or in addition to any existing trustees.

In Mardesic the Court removed the trustee because he was in a conflict of interest with the interests of all the beneficiaries of the estate, noting that section 31 conferred a very broad power on the Court.

The test for removal of an executrix or trustee is set out in Conroy v. Stokes, [1952] 4 DLR 124

BCNA Masks Now Available to Order

We are pleased to announce that BCNA washable and reusable face masks are now available to order. Available in black only, with the BC Notaries’ logo in light grey and an elasticised trim.

To order, please email Olivia at bcna@ bcnotaryassociation.ca

1. Order in packs of 10 or 25. 2. Prices include Shipping

Canada Post expedited Parcel: 2 business days guaranteed 3. BCNA Member and Non-Member pricing applies.

Please ensure you select the correct option. 4. Prices include GST and PST. BCNA MEMBER PRICING Pack of 10: $44.75 | Pack of 25: $95.15

BCNA NON-MEMBER PRICING Pack of 10: $54.83 | Pack of 25: $120.35 PRODUCT DETAIL

Material: 80% Polyester 20% Cotton

Non-Medical Reusable Mask

Hand wash at 60 degrees or machine wash at 40 degrees

One size fits most

All purchases are final. Sorry no returns of PPE supplies.

(BCCA), where the Court confirmed at pp. 126-127 that the main test for removal of a trustee is the welfare of the beneficiaries.

It is somewhat trite law that the Court’s main guide in deciding to remove an executor or trustee should be the welfare of the beneficiaries: Letterstedt v. Broers (1884) 9 App. Cas. 371.

The sanction of removal of an executor or trustee is not intended to punish the executor or trustee for past welfare of the beneficiaries, but instead is to protect the assets of the trust and the interests of the beneficiaries. However, past misconduct that is likely to continue will often be sufficient to justify removal.

In Dirnbeger Estate (2016) BCSC 439, the Court considered an application for removal and replacement of an executor. The executor had in fact retained numerous professionals to assist, but eventually dismissed each one due to his inability to maintain a professional Each case is very fact-specific and most applications to remove an executor are vigorously contested as there are often great personal conflicts…

relationship with them. After 4 years, the estate remained undistributed.

The Court, citing Conroy v. Stokes (1952) 4 DLR 124, set out the four categories of conduct on the part of an executor or trustee that warrant removal:

1.

2.

3.

4. endangerment of the trust property; want of honesty; want of proper capacity to execute duties; and want of reasonable fidelity.

The Court removed the trustee due to his inability to discharge his duties after 4 years, and to maintain relationships with trustees, as well as his unaccountable hostility toward a sibling who was a beneficiary and an alternate executor. Conclusion The Courts are most reluctant to interfere with the deceased’s right to nominate his or her executor/trustee, and it is only the most egregious conduct, that harms or potentially harms the best interests of the beneficiaries, that will prompt the Court to pass over, or alternatively, remove an executor or trustee and substitute another.

Each case is very fact-specific and most applications to remove an executor are vigorously contested as there are often great personal conflicts between the beneficiaries and the named executor/trustee. Emotional conflict is not a major factor in the Court’s decision as to whether to pass over or remove an executor/trustee and substitute another. s Trevor Todd restricts his practice to estate litigation. He has practised law in Vancouver for 46 years.

Mercedes & Michael Go the Extra Mile with Value-Added Resources and Services!

COMMUNITY OF REAL ESTATE SERVICES

Counselor of Real Estate (CRE)

As a CRE, Mercedes offers valueadded services as Recognized Problem-Solvers. CREs are rich in talent, experience, and generosity of spirit. CREs are additional immediate resources when you are seeking expert advice—and partnerships. As Counselors, CREs assume meaningful roles in the marketplace in good times and in times of crisis.

Troubled Asset-Workouts

Our property expertise, experience, and value-added resources enable us to analyze portfolios and create a workout plan to assist you to implement property/projectmanagement, stabilize operations, coordinate the sale of properties through brokers and investor networks, provide litigation support and discovery assistance, and provide monthly reporting to the financial institutions.

Financing

Our value-added resources help us provide benefits and a wealth of experience, appropriate to your specific needs. Property Management We help find good tenants, manage all aspects of the tenant-landlord relationship, handle both routine and emergency maintenance, take care of routine inspections, and manage any situations where conflict-resolution is required. Health and Wellness We understand that wholeness in your team is paramount to timely and effective growth. Not only have you invested in proprietary strategies, you have invested in your people. Our resources serve your specific corporate needs.

Michael Shilton

Michael Shilton Personal Real Estate Corporation

Commercial Real Estate Investment Advisor

CELL: 604.897.2363

EMAIL: Michael@MichaelShilton.com

Royal LePage Wolstencroft Realty

19664 64 Ave #135, Langley City, BC V2Y 3J6 o: 604.530.0231

Mercedes Wong CRE CCIM FRI RI

Mercedes Wong Personal Real Estate Corporation

Vice President of International Development

CELL: 604.808.2571

EMAIL: mercedes@telus.net

Prominent Real Estate Services 829 Cambie St, Vancouver, BC V6B 2P4 o: 778.386.8013