A recent Supreme Court of British Columbia decision, Pike v. Pike, considered an estate dispute involving two wills executed five weeks apart, allegations of undue influence, an elderly will-maker’s dependence on an adult child, and recurring payments made before her death.

Although the Court found suspicious circumstances and controlling conduct by the child who benefited from the later will, it concluded that the document reflected the will-maker’s independent wishes.

The case highlights the distinction between influence and legally actionable undue influence. It also demonstrates the importance of careful legal documentation when a will is prepared in potentially contentious circumstances.

An Elderly Parent Living With Her Son

The will-maker had two surviving children, a daughter and a son. She experienced serious health conditions, including kidney disease requiring dialysis, reduced lung capacity, and cancer.

In 2015, she moved into her son’s condominium in Abbotsford and depended substantially on him for housing. After selling her Victoria condominium, she gave $70,000 to the son and $60,000 to the daughter. She also paid the son between $600 and $800 each month.

The son described the monthly payments as gifts made in place of rent. The daughter later argued that the payments resulted from undue influence and should be returned to the estate.

A Family Conflict Leads to a New Will

In February 2018, the will-maker and her son had a serious disagreement. The daughter contacted police and temporarily brought her mother to the daughter’s North Vancouver home. No charges were laid. Soon afterward, the daughter’s husband arranged for the will-maker to meet an estate lawyer. She met privately with the lawyer and signed a will on February 27, 2018.

The February will divided the estate equally between the children, but granted the daughter an additional $10,000 equalization payment. It also required debts owed by either child to be considered when their shares were calculated.

The daughter was named executor and was appointed under an enduring power of attorney and representation agreement.

A Second Will Is Signed Five Weeks Later

After learning about the February documents, the son reviewed them with his mother and arranged for her to meet another estate lawyer. The second lawyer became concerned about the son’s conduct during their initial meeting. He was reluctant to leave the room, brought notes about matters he wanted to discuss, and asked whether his mother could be prevented from signing future legal documents without him.

The lawyer recorded concerns that the son appeared controlling and arranged a separate meeting with the will-maker alone. During that meeting, the lawyer reconsidered the instructions from the beginning.

On April 3, 2018, the will-maker signed a second will. It continued to divide the estate equally but removed the daughter’s $10,000 payment. It also forgave debts and provided that previous gifts and loans would not reduce either child’s share. The son was named executor and was appointed under new power of attorney and representation documents.

The Later Will Is Challenged

After the will-maker died, the daughter challenged the April will on the basis of undue influence. Because the April document revoked all previous wills, the Court first considered whether it was valid. The key questions were whether the will-maker had testamentary capacity, whether she knew and approved of its contents, and whether the son had unduly influenced her.

The Court found suspicious circumstances. The will-maker was 86 years old, seriously ill, financially insecure, and dependent on the son for housing. The second will was also executed only five weeks after the first.

The son’s involvement added to the concerns. He arranged the appointment, reviewed the earlier will with his mother, wrote proposed changes on it, and behaved in a manner that caused the second lawyer to consider the possibility of undue influence. Because the daughter established a relationship of dependence and potential domination under British Columbia’s estate legislation (section 52 of the Wills, Estates, and Succession Act), the legal burden shifted to the son to prove that the April will was not the product of undue influence.

Capacity and Knowledge Were Established

Testamentary capacity requires a will-maker to understand the nature of making a will, appreciate the general extent of their property, recognize the people who may reasonably expect to benefit, and understand the consequences of the proposed distribution.

The Court relied heavily on the second lawyer’s detailed notes. The will-maker understood that she had recently signed another will, believed it did not reflect her wishes, and wanted to revoke it. She discussed her accounts, government benefits, tax-free savings account, condominium proceeds, and previous transfers to her children. She also repeatedly instructed the lawyer that her estate should be divided equally and that earlier gifts and loans should not affect the distribution.

The Court concluded that the will-maker had testamentary capacity and understood and approved the effect of the April will.

Controlling Behaviour Was Not Undue Influence

The Court found that the son was in a position to potentially dominate his mother and had behaved in a controlling manner. However, controlling conduct, persuasion, or involvement does not necessarily amount to undue influence. The legal question was whether the son’s conduct overbore the will-maker’s wishes and destroyed her ability to act freely.

The second lawyer’s precautions were important. She met with the will-maker alone, reconsidered the instructions from the beginning, explained that she represented only the will-maker, and directly asked whether the changes were her own idea. The lawyer also gave the will-maker an opportunity not to proceed if she felt pressured. The will-maker declined and confirmed that she wanted to sign the will.

The Court was satisfied that the son’s influence did not amount to coercion and upheld the April will.

The Monthly Payments Were Gifts

The Court also considered whether the monthly payments to the son should be repaid to the estate. A transfer of money between adults may be presumed not to be a gift unless the recipient proves otherwise. In this case, there were no loan documents, repayment terms, demands for payment, or evidence that the will-maker expected the money to be returned.

Her statutory declaration also described the payments as gifts made in place of rent. The Court found that the transfers were gifts reflecting her free and informed decision. The payments were therefore not required to be repaid to the estate.

Suspicious Circumstances Do Not Automatically Invalidate a Will

The Court pronounced the April 2018 will valid in solemn form. Because it revoked the February will, the Court did not need to determine whether the earlier document was valid.

This decision demonstrates that suspicious circumstances alone do not invalidate a will. Even where a beneficiary arranges legal appointments and the will-maker depends on that beneficiary, the surrounding evidence may establish that the final instructions remained the will-maker’s own.

Private meetings, detailed legal notes, direct questions about pressure, and documented explanations for testamentary choices can all become significant evidence in a later estate dispute.

Contact the Vancouver Estate Litigation Lawyers at Meridian Law Group for Will Disputes and Elder Law Advice

Disputes involving competing wills, testamentary capacity, undue influence, financial transfers, powers of attorney, or gifts made before death can involve closely connected factual and legal issues.

Meridian Law Group assists executors, beneficiaries, seniors, adult children, and families with contested wills, suspicious estate planning changes, elder financial abuse concerns, undue influence claims, and disputes involving lifetime gifts and property transfers. To discuss your estate litigation or elder law matter with a knowledgeable member of our team, please contact us online or call (604) 913-7465.