The court cited the need to balance the interests of all parties while ensuring a fair trial
The Supreme Court of British Columbia postponed an estate proceeding after the defendants cited a lack of legal representation and financial difficulties, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing.
The case centred on a will contest filed by John Siddons, the plaintiff, who sought to prove the validity of a 1993 will and its accompanying codicil. Several of the deceased’s children have opposed this, alleging undue influence by Siddons and the wrongful acquisition of their mother’s property. They have also introduced a second will, dated September 30, 2018, which they argued should supersede the earlier will. These matters are connected to a separate case, the “Kelowna action,” which challenged financial dealings involving a jointly owned condominium.
The defendants sought to delay the proceedings primarily due to the recent withdrawal of their counsel. Their lead lawyer ceased representing them in July after requiring a substantial retainer, which the defendants could not provide. Subsequent counsel from Lawson Lundell LLP also withdrew in September, further complicating the defendants' preparation for trial. In her application, defendant Randa Salloum requested court approval to access estate funds to finance their defence, as discovery examinations remained incomplete.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court acknowledged the difficulties faced by the defendants in securing legal counsel. It highlighted the complexity of the allegations, which include claims of misappropriation, breach of fiduciary duty, and undue influence. Despite expressing concerns about the defendants’ behaviour towards opposing counsel, the judge concluded that proceeding without legal representation could undermine the fairness of the trial.
The court cited case law as guidance, emphasizing the need to balance the interests of all parties while ensuring a fair trial on the merits. He noted that while the plaintiffs, John Siddons and his wife, Violette, face significant financial and emotional strain due to ongoing litigation, the absence of counsel for the defendants posed a greater risk to the integrity of the trial.
The court imposed specific conditions for the adjournment. The defendants were ordered to secure the earliest possible trial date in a registry convenient to the plaintiffs. Additionally, the adjournment was granted on the condition that the plaintiffs’ costs related to the delay be paid promptly. The judge warned that the new trial date would be final, emphasizing that further delays would not be tolerated.
