BC Supreme Court removes siblings as litigation guardians amid conflict of interest concerns

The court questioned their neutrality due to evidence of strained relationships

BC Supreme Court removes siblings as litigation guardians amid conflict of interest concerns

The Supreme Court of British Columbia removed two siblings as litigation guardians for their 91-year-old mother in an estate dispute, citing concerns over conflicts of interest and familial discord.

The mother, now residing in a care facility, is unable to manage her legal affairs due to diminished mental capacity. In 2018, she and her late spouse transferred joint ownership of the family home to include themselves and one of their children. Following the spouse’s death in 2019, the mother and the child shared ownership of the house. In 2021, the mother transferred her remaining interest in the property to the child, making the child the sole owner.

In 2023, two siblings, acting as litigation guardians, filed legal proceedings claiming that their mother lacked the capacity to authorize the property transfers and alleging undue influence by their sibling. They sought to have the home reconveyed to their mother, which would increase the value of her estate upon her death. The sibling who now owns the home contested their role as litigation guardians, arguing that their financial and personal interests created a conflict of interest.

The court examined rule 20-2 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, which requires litigation guardians to act in the best interests of the person under disability and remain impartial in legal proceedings.

While the financial interest of the litigation guardians alone was insufficient to disqualify them, the court noted evidence of personal conflict between the siblings and the child who owns the home. Affidavits described strained relationships and alleged hostility, leading the Supreme Court to conclude that the litigation guardians might lack the neutrality required for their role.

The litigation guardians proposed two alternatives to take their place: a family member and a spouse of one of the removed guardians. The court appointed the family member, citing their lack of personal conflict and minimal financial interest in the dispute.