Sharma v. Sharma Estate, 2016 BCSC 1397
In Sharma v. Sharma Estate, the Supreme Court of British Columbia was asked to decide whether a mother’s decision to leave her entire estate to one child, while excluding her other children was fair, justified, and legally valid under British Columbia’s laws.
The estate was significant, valued at over $2 million, and included assets both in Canada and abroad. In her will, the deceased left everything to one son, Victor, while effectively disinheriting her other children.
She attempted to justify this unequal treatment by stating that the excluded children had already received sufficient financial assistance during her lifetime.
However, when the matter came before the Court, that narrative did not hold up under scrutiny.
The disinherited children challenged the Will, arguing that they had not, in fact, received meaningful financial support. At the same time, the evidence showed that the favoured son had benefited extensively from the deceased during her lifetime. He had received ongoing financial assistance, including living rent-free and having various expenses covered. This significantly undermined the mother’s stated reasoning for the unequal distribution.
The legal issue centered on whether the will met the standard required under British Columbia’s Wills, Estates and Succession Act, namely, whether it made “adequate, just and equitable provision” for the deceased’s children.
Justice Griffin emphasized that, in British Columbia, testamentary freedom is not absolute. A Will-maker has both legal and moral obligations to their children, even if those children are independent adults.
Courts will carefully examine not only the wording of the Will, but also:
- the reality of family relationships,
- financial circumstances, and
- the accuracy of the reasons given for unequal treatment.
In this case, the Court found that the mother’s reasons were not only insufficient, but factually incorrect.
The children who were excluded had not been adequately provided for, while the son who received everything had already benefited significantly. As a result, the Will failed to meet the required legal standard.
The Court intervened and varied the Will, redistributing the estate more evenly among the children. This outcome effectively overrode the mother’s expressed intentions in favour of what the Court considered a fair and equitable result.
An additional layer of complexity arose from the fact that part of the estate included real property located outside British Columbia, specifically in Fiji. The Court noted that it does not have direct jurisdiction over foreign real estate, which can create practical challenges. In such cases, beneficiaries may need to pursue additional legal proceedings in the foreign jurisdiction to fully realize their entitlement.
The decision in Sharma v. Sharma Estate serves as a indication that disinheriting children, particularly without clear, accurate, and defensible reasons, can expose a Will to successful legal challenge.
Ultimately, the case reinforces a simple but powerful principle: fairness matters. A Will that does not reflect both the legal and moral duties of a parent may not stand.
Brian Madigan LL.B., Broker
www.OntarioRealEstateSource.com