The judge used the wrong standard, so it was not 'plain and obvious' the claims were time-barred
The British Columbia Court of Appeal overturned the dismissal of trust claims in an estate dispute between two sisters, ruling that the chambers judge erred by improperly weighing evidence and applying the wrong legal test under the Limitation Act.
The case centred on Elaine Chartier and Diane Wilkinson, sisters who became involved in litigation following the death of their mother, Ruby Whiffin, in 2017. After Ruby's passing, Diane discovered that her mother had changed her will in 2010, leaving nearly her entire estate to Elaine and appointing her as executrix. Diane also learned that Ruby had transferred the family home to Elaine during her lifetime.
Diane sought and was granted court approval under s. 151 of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act (WESA) to initiate claims on behalf of Ruby's estate. She argued that the home transfer was invalid, alleging that Ruby lacked capacity or that Elaine exercised undue influence over her. Diane further claimed that Elaine held the property in trust for the estate. In addition to these claims, she contested the will's validity and attempted to remove Elaine as executrix, but the appeal did not address her claims.
Elaine applied for summary judgment, contending that Diane's claims regarding the family home were time-barred under the Limitation Act because she had sufficient knowledge of the transfer by early 2017. The chambers judge agreed and dismissed those claims.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the judge erred in two significant ways. First, the judge improperly weighed the evidence on a summary judgment application. A judge must determine whether a claim has a genuine issue for trial but cannot assess credibility or resolve conflicting evidence. The judge's conclusion that Diane had sufficient knowledge of Elaine's alleged misconduct by early 2017 contradicted Diane's sworn evidence. The court found that Diane's affidavits added context to her previous testimony and stated that the judge should have evaluated any inconsistencies instead of dismissing them outright.
Second, the judge used the wrong legal test to determine when Diane discovered the claim under the Limitation Act. The judge relied on a test from Grant Thornton LLP v. New Brunswick, 2021 SCC 31, which applies to general limitation periods but not to trust claims governed by s. 12 of the Limitation Act. The court emphasized that under s. 12, the claimant discovers a claim when they know the essential facts, not merely when they could infer liability. The judge should have determined when Diane fully realized that Elaine claimed ownership inconsistent with a trust or that improper means influenced the transfer.
Since the judge applied the wrong legal standard and improperly assessed Diane's credibility, the court concluded that it was not "plain and obvious" that her claims were time-barred. The court allowed the appeal and overturned the summary dismissal. Diane's claims regarding the family home will now proceed to trial, where a judge will determine whether the property transfer was valid and whether Elaine breached any obligations to the estate.
