Pursuing the case would have created unnecessary financial risks: court
The BC Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of a negligence claim against the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT), finding it acted appropriately by prioritizing the care of an incapacitated individual over pursuing a risky wills variation claim.
The case concerned the estate of a woman who left her property in trust for her spouse’s lifetime care, with the remaining assets designated for charitable beneficiaries upon his passing. After the spouse was declared legally incapable and placed under the management of the PGT, his executor argued that the PGT should have sought to vary the will under the Wills, Estates and Succession Act (WESA) to provide greater benefits to the spouse and his family. The executor claimed the PGT’s failure to pursue such a claim constituted negligence.
At trial, the judge found that pursuing a wills variation claim would have posed significant risks, including a high likelihood of failure and potential depletion of estate assets through legal costs. The judge determined that the PGT’s decision aligned with its statutory obligations, which prioritize the welfare of individuals under its care. The court also held that the PGT was not obligated to act in the interests of the heirs, as the deceased was under no legal or moral duty to benefit them.
On appeal, the executor argued that the judge erred in concluding the wills variation claim would likely fail and misinterpreted the Patients Property Act (PPA) by excluding the interests of the incapacitated individual’s family from consideration. The appellate court disagreed, affirming that the PGT’s actions were reasonable and legally sound.
The Court of Appeal highlighted that the trust established in the will provided adequately for the spouse’s needs, allowing trustees to access both income and capital for his benefit. It emphasized that pursuing a variation claim would have created unnecessary financial risks, potentially undermining the resources available for the spouse’s care. The court dismissed the appeal.
