Virdi Estate, 2025 BCSC 689
Disputes between siblings over an estate are not uncommon, but Virdi Estate, 2025 BCSC 689 highlights a particularly important legal issue:
- what happens when the person named as executor
- also claims the estate owes them money?
The case arose following the death of Ajit Virdi in 2023. He left behind an estate valued at approximately $1.56 million, consisting primarily of the family home in Surrey, British Columbia, along with modest financial assets. His 1995 Will divided the estate equally among his four children and named one son, Malkeet, as the alternate executor.
What might have been a straightforward estate administration quickly became contentious.
Shortly after their father’s death, Malkeet introduced a later Will from 2019 that would have made him the sole beneficiary. However, concerns emerged about its validity, specifically that the witnessing requirements had not been properly met.
Malkeet ultimately chose not to rely on that document and instead applied to probate the earlier 1995 Will
That decision did not resolve the conflict. At the same time, Malkeet asserted that the estate owed him money based on a promissory note allegedly signed by his father in 1993. With interest, the claim was potentially worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, a significant portion of the estate.
Two of the siblings, Surinder and Peter, strongly opposed this claim. They questioned whether the promissory note was legitimate and raised concerns about its authenticity, including issues with signatures and the circumstances in which it surfaced.
They argued that Malkeet could not fairly act as executor while advancing a personal financial claim against the estate.
This placed the Court squarely before a key legal question:
- can an executor continue in their role
- when their personal interests conflict with their fiduciary duties?
The Court acknowledged that it should not lightly interfere with a testator’s choice of executor. However, that principle is not absolute. The overriding consideration is the proper and efficient administration of the estate for the benefit of all beneficiaries.
In this case, the Court found that Malkeet’s position created an:
irreconcilable conflict of interest.
If he continued as executor, he would effectively be in the impossible position of both pursuing a claim against the estate and defending the estate against that same claim.
The dispute over the promissory note was not minor, it was substantial, contested, and likely to require litigation. This would inevitably delay and complicate the administration of the estate.
Malkeet had proposed a practical solution: holding back funds from the estate pending resolution of the dispute. However, the Court found that this did not cure the fundamental problem. The conflict was not about security for the claim, it was about the executor’s ability to act impartially.
As a result, the Court ordered that Malkeet be “passed over” as executor and trustee. In his place, Surinder was authorized to apply for probate and take on the role of administering the estate. The Court also ordered that Malkeet personally pay Surinder’s legal costs, emphasizing that this dispute arose from the parties themselves, not from any ambiguity in the Will.
This decision underscores an important lesson in estate law. While it is not uncommon for executors to have some personal interest in an estate, there is a clear line that cannot be crossed. When an executor’s personal claim is significant, disputed, and directly adverse to the estate, the Court will intervene.
For estate planners and families alike, the conclusion is simple but critical:
an executor must be able to act with complete neutrality.
Where that neutrality is compromised, even by a legitimate claim, the risk of removal is very real.
Brian Madigan LL.B., Broker