Case information

Wills and estates — Administration of estates — Executors and administrators — Dispute regarding testator’s intended beneficiaries — Applicant ordered to pay security for costs into court and denied leave to appeal – What constitutes the date the court is in receipt of payment for security for costs? — Whether wording acceptable in an affidavit required by the court must reproduce the exact wording used in the decision by the court or whether equivalent wording may be used — Whether important legal questions affecting the rights of testators, beneficiaries and interested persons have been raised.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Abraham and Bessie Goldstick were married in 1948. Bessie had two children from a prior marriage. Abraham and Bessie had two children of their own, including the applicant. Abraham executed a will in 1969, and died in 1979, leaving a bequest of $10,000 “to each of my children” and created a life estate in the residue for Bessie. Upon her death, the will directed that the residue should be divided equally among the surviving children. The will made no specific mention of his step-children. The family met in 1979 to discuss Abraham’s will and all agreed that he had intended to benefit all children and stepchildren equally. The grant of probate listed the four children as residual beneficiaries. The family proceeded on the basis of this interpretation of the will until after Bessie’s death in 2014, when the applicant notified his two step-siblings that they were not beneficiaries under the will because step-children did not fall within the term “children”.

Abraham’s estate included a property in Edson, Alberta. In June, 2015, the applicant applied to have that property transferred into his name as to a half interest, with the other half interest to be transferred into the names of his niece and nephew, children of his deceased sister. The two step-siblings cross-applied to have the applicant’s application struck out, on the basis of estoppel, res judicata, the Limitations Act, laches and the 1979 family agreement. The applicant also brought a second application described as the “Removal and Replacement of Executrix Application.” The executrix was one of the step-siblings. The case management judge dismissed the the application to transfer the Edson property. The removal application was adjourned on conditions. The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal of the property transfer order. The applicant’s application for leave to set down his removal application was dismissed due to the applicant’s failure to comply with the conditions previously imposed. The applicant’s appeal from this decision was dismissed. The Court of Appeal denied his application to have the matter heard by a full panel of the Court of Appeal.