Modernizing How Wills Are Made: Electronic Wills and Remote Witnessing
Making a will in BC is now more convenient thanks to recent reforms. Electronic wills – wills signed and stored entirely in digital form – have been legally recognized in BC since December 1, 2021 (Make a Will Week - Province of British Columbia). This means a will can exist as an electronic document (for example, a PDF file) signed electronically, without any paper original. All exact copies of a BC electronic will are considered “originals” for probate purposes, making it easier for your executor to submit the will to court (Make a Will Week - Province of British Columbia). You may still choose to print a copy for safekeeping, but the law does not require an ink-signed hardcopy (Make a Will Week - Province of British Columbia). Importantly, BC was the first Canadian province to enable electronic wills and remote witnessing of wills – a change prompted in part by the COVID-19 pandemic and made permanent by legislation. Now, your two witnesses can even witness your will via video conference if needed, as long as certain formalities are followed (such as having an extra signed copy) – removing the old requirement that everyone be physically in the same room.
These innovations make estate planning more accessible, especially for those who are homebound or live in remote areas. However, with new technology comes new responsibility. Practical tip: If you make an electronic will, save it in a stable format (the BC government suggests PDF) and store it in a secure place (or even in multiple places) known to your executor (Make a Will Week - Province of British Columbia). Also, ensure your executors know how to access your digital records. While all formats are legally accepted, a well-organized PDF will can simplify the probate process for your loved ones.
Validity of Wills: Courts Can “Cure” Defective or Informal Documents
BC’s Wills, Estates and Succession Act (WESA) is relatively unique in Canada for giving courts a power to validate a document that doesn’t meet the usual formal requirements of a will. Under WESA’s section 58, the Supreme Court can order that a record or document be treated as a valid will, even if it wasn’t properly signed or witnessed, so long as the court is satisfied it represents the deceased’s true final wishes. Recent cases in 2024 illustrate how this works – and its limits.
One notable 2024 case involved a 101-year-old woman who left behind a handwritten note altering her estate plan. In Walker Estate (Re), 2024 BCSC 792, the executor asked the court to decide if a scrawled note by the deceased in 2016 was meant to revoke a later codicil (will amendment) and revive parts of an earlier will (Handwritten note revokes will amendment, revives original will: BC Supreme Court | Canadian Lawyer). The note stated, “I, [A.W.], revoke any changes to my 2015 will…”, and a forensic analysis confirmed it was written by the deceased (Handwritten note revokes will amendment, revives original will: BC Supreme Court | Canadian Lawyer). The judge found that this informal note did reflect the deceased’s fixed and final testamentary intentions – essentially, it showed she really meant to undo the codicil and revert to the original will (Handwritten note revokes will amendment, revives original will: BC Supreme Court | Canadian Lawyer). As a result, the court used WESA’s curative provision to give legal effect to that note, honoring the true wishes of the will-maker despite the note not being a formal will (Handwritten note revokes will amendment, revives original will: BC Supreme Court | Canadian Lawyer) (Handwritten note revokes will amendment, revives original will: BC Supreme Court | Canadian Lawyer). The court also decided that the estate should cover the legal costs on both sides, since it was the deceased’s unusual actions that made the court application necessary (Handwritten note revokes will amendment, revives original will: BC Supreme Court | Canadian Lawyer).
However, not every informal document will be saved by the court. In another 2024 case, Reid Estate, 2024 BCSC 1932, the court refused to validate a handwritten note found after a woman’s death (November 2024 | Disinherited). Unlike the clear instruction in Walker, the note in Reid Estate was rambling and ambiguous. It was undated, did not clearly identify itself as a will, contained conflicting statements (even about what to do with the person’s remains), and appeared to reflect the deceased’s transient thoughts during a period of illness (November 2024 | Disinherited) (November 2024 | Disinherited). In fact, evidence showed the woman told others she had not yet made a will and was merely considering her options (November 2024 | Disinherited). Because the note did not convincingly represent a deliberate final decision on her estate, the court held it was not a valid will. These contrasting outcomes send a clear message: while BC courts can overlook technical errors to give effect to someone’s last wishes, the person’s intent must be convincingly proven. A casual or unclear note made in passing won’t meet that test.
Practical implications: If you need to change your will, it’s best to do so formally (e.g. via a lawyer-drafted codicil or new will) rather than relying on sticky notes or unsent drafts. The law offers a safety net for genuine mistakes or unforeseeable circumstances, but a properly executed will is still the surest way to carry out your intentions and avoid costly court battles.
Protecting Vulnerable Will-Makers: Capacity and Undue Influence
Another important aspect of will-making is that the will-maker must have testamentary capacity (the mental ability to understand what they are doing) and must be free from undue influence or coercion. Disputes often arise in estates where an elderly or infirm person changed their will or transferred assets under suspicious circumstances. BC courts in 2024 addressed these issues, showing a willingness to intervene in cases of exploitation.
(image) An elderly person signing documents with guidance. In BC, wills can be challenged if there are doubts about the will-maker’s mental capacity or freedom from undue influence. (Handwritten note revokes will amendment, revives original will: BC Supreme Court | Canadian Lawyer) (BC Court Applies Resulting Trust and Undue Influence to Remedy a Predatory Relationship)
One dramatic example did not involve a will, but a predatory relationship that could have gutted an elderly woman’s estate. In King v. Vimhel, 2024 BCSC 1745, a 77-year-old North Vancouver woman (Ms. King) befriended a man 15 years her junior who quickly moved in and gained influence over her (BC Court Applies Resulting Trust and Undue Influence to Remedy a Predatory Relationship) (BC Court Applies Resulting Trust and Undue Influence to Remedy a Predatory Relationship). Over several years, he isolated her from friends and family and even moved her out of her home, all while pressuring her to sign over assets – including adding him as a joint owner of her $1.2 million property (BC Court Applies Resulting Trust and Undue Influence to Remedy a Predatory Relationship) (BC Court Applies Resulting Trust and Undue Influence to Remedy a Predatory Relationship). Eventually, Ms. King escaped and the matter ended up in court. The BC Supreme Court voided the property transfer, declaring that the man held any interest in the home in a resulting trust for Ms. King’s benefit (BC Court Applies Resulting Trust and Undue Influence to Remedy a Predatory Relationship). In plain terms, because he gave no value for the gift and obtained it through wrongdoing, the house was put back into her name alone (BC Court Applies Resulting Trust and Undue Influence to Remedy a Predatory Relationship). The judge also found overwhelming evidence of undue influence – the man had effectively terrorized Ms. King into giving in to his demands (BC Court Applies Resulting Trust and Undue Influence to Remedy a Predatory Relationship). To underline the court’s condemnation of this “predator,” punitive damages of $50,000 were awarded against him (BC Court Applies Resulting Trust and Undue Influence to Remedy a Predatory Relationship). As the court noted, this extreme case required a strong response to send a “clear message that courts will act decisively to rectify egregious misconduct” (BC Court Applies Resulting Trust and Undue Influence to Remedy a Predatory Relationship).
While King v. Vimhel dealt with an inter vivos (during life) transfer, the same issues often arise with wills – for instance, when one child is accused of pressuring an aging parent to rewrite a will in their favor. BC law presumes an adult has capacity to make a will, but that can be rebutted if evidence shows they did not understand what they were doing due to illness, cognitive decline, or delusions. Undue influence, on the other hand, can be subtle and is notoriously difficult to prove – the influencer’s control must be such that the will reflects their wishes, not the will-maker’s. There is no automatic voiding of a will due to mere opportunity or unequal gifts, but courts will closely scrutinize suspicious circumstances. The lesson for families is to be alert to signs of undue influence (such as sudden changes in an elder’s relationships or financial affairs) and, if you’re helping an aging relative with their will, ensure they get independent advice. From a planner’s perspective, keeping detailed notes and even video recordings of a will-signing (to confirm the person was acting freely and understood the will) can provide valuable evidence if the will is later challenged.
Ensuring Fairness for Family Members: Wills Variation Claims
British Columbia is well-known for its wills variation law, which allows spouses and children to challenge a will that does not make adequate provision for them. Under section 60 of WESA, the BC Supreme Court may modify the distribution in a will to ensure that it is just and equitable to the surviving spouse and children. 2024 saw a significant case illustrating how cultural biases or parental preferences can be corrected by the court to achieve fairness.
(image) A visual representation of gender bias. BC’s wills variation law empowered the court in one case to correct a mother’s unequal treatment of her son and daughter (BC Supreme Court orders will variation due to gender bias | Canadian Lawyer) (BC Supreme Court orders will variation due to gender bias | Canadian Lawyer).
In Lam v. Law Estate, 2024 BCSC 1561, a mother’s will left the vast majority of her estate to her son – including the family home and proceeds from other properties – while her daughter received a much smaller share (a half-interest in a single rental property) (BC Supreme Court orders will variation due to gender bias | Canadian Lawyer) (BC Supreme Court orders will variation due to gender bias | Canadian Lawyer). In dollar terms, the son stood to inherit over 82% of the estate (roughly $2.9 million of value), and the daughter about $170,000 (BC Supreme Court orders will variation due to gender bias | Canadian Lawyer). The daughter challenged the will in court, arguing that this gross disparity failed to provide her adequate, just support, and stemmed from the mother’s traditional gender-based preference for a son over a daughter (BC Supreme Court orders will variation due to gender bias | Canadian Lawyer). The son, in response, denied there was discrimination – he claimed his larger share was a reward for managing his mother’s affairs and that his sister had not been treated unfairly (BC Supreme Court orders will variation due to gender bias | Canadian Lawyer).
The court ultimately varied the will to substantially boost the daughter’s inheritance. While the judge did not completely equalize the distribution, she awarded the daughter 85% of the East 18th Avenue property (the real estate the daughter originally co-owned) instead of just 50% (BC Supreme Court orders will variation due to gender bias | Canadian Lawyer). This effectively increased the daughter’s portion of the estate to better reflect what she deserved. The son was not disinherited – the court acknowledged his contributions as a “devoted son” – but his share was reduced to remedy the inequity (BC Supreme Court orders will variation due to gender bias | Canadian Lawyer). The case is a reminder that in BC, a parent’s moral duty to their children can transcend even clear wording in a will. Courts will consider contemporary societal norms and the specific family context: here, a starkly one-sided will influenced by outdated values did not pass muster (BC Supreme Court orders will variation due to gender bias | Canadian Lawyer) (BC Supreme Court orders will variation due to gender bias | Canadian Lawyer).
Practical takeaway: If you plan to leave significantly unequal gifts to your children (or to disinherit a spouse or child entirely), be aware that your wishes might be overturned by a court. It’s wise to document your reasons and ensure they are rational and legitimate (for example, providing more to a disabled child who needs lifelong support could be seen as valid, whereas favoring one child purely due to gender or longstanding favoritism may not hold up). Seeking legal advice on wills variation can help in crafting an estate plan that minimizes the risk of litigation. Conversely, if you are a spouse or child who feels unfairly left out of a will, BC’s wills variation provisions are there to protect you – but strict time limits apply (an action must be started within 180 days of probate), so don’t delay in getting legal advice.
Updates in Trusts and Estate Administration
Developments in 2024 have also touched on trust administration and the handling of estates – from the ability to adjust trust terms, to the duties of executors and even substitute decision-makers managing an incapable person’s affairs. Below we highlight a few key updates and cases:
(image) Family property disputes can arise during estate administration. BC courts in 2024 clarified the limits of what executors or representatives can do with estate assets (BC Supreme Court Strikes down joint tenancy severance in estate dispute | Canadian Lawyer) (BC Supreme Court Strikes down joint tenancy severance in estate dispute | Canadian Lawyer).
-
Court reluctance to vary trusts unless truly necessary: In Boys and Girls Club of Greater Victoria Foundation v. British Columbia (AG), 2024 BCSC 442, a charitable foundation asked the court to modify the terms of a trust so that it could sell a piece of land and use the funds for other pressing programs (Mission impractical: Varying charitable trust purposes, impracticality, and the Boys and Girls Club decision | Miller Thomson) (Mission impractical: Varying charitable trust purposes, impracticality, and the Boys and Girls Club decision | Miller Thomson). The land had been donated years ago on the condition it be used for a youth camp, but the charity argued the camp was underused and expensive to maintain. The court, however, refused to grant the requested change under the cy-près doctrine. Justice Marzari held that the threshold for “impracticality” had not been met – while the camp might have been difficult or costly to keep, it wasn’t impossible to continue using it as intended (Mission impractical: Varying charitable trust purposes, impracticality, and the Boys and Girls Club decision | Miller Thomson). The charity’s other funding needs, and the fact that maintaining the trust property was burdensome, did not outweigh the donor’s specific wishes. This decision reinforces that trusts (including those set up in wills) will generally be enforced according to their terms, and deviations are only allowed in exceptional circumstances. For individuals setting up trusts (for example, a trust for a child or a gift to charity in your will), the lesson is to be very clear and perhaps build in some flexibility if you anticipate changes might be needed. For beneficiaries or trustees, it means that courts will hold you to the settlor’s or will-maker’s original intent unless continuing that intent becomes effectively impossible.
-
Estate representatives cannot rewrite an incapable person’s estate plan: A noteworthy BC case addressed what a legally appointed guardian (called a committee) can – and cannot – do in managing an elderly person’s property. In Hubert v. Ju, 2024 BCSC 2196 (an estate dispute reported in late 2024), a 105-year-old woman had many years earlier placed her house in joint tenancy with one granddaughter, clearly intending that the granddaughter would inherit the whole property by right of survivorship (BC Supreme Court Strikes down joint tenancy severance in estate dispute | Canadian Lawyer). After the woman lost capacity in 2019, her committee (in this case, her adult son) attempted to sever the joint tenancy in 2021 – which would have converted the ownership to a tenancy-in-common, effectively pulling half the home’s value back into the older woman’s estate to be shared with other family members (BC Supreme Court Strikes down joint tenancy severance in estate dispute | Canadian Lawyer). The son argued this change was to align with his mother’s supposed wish to treat all grandchildren equally. The Supreme Court of BC disagreed and invalidated the severance, restoring the joint tenancy so that the granddaughter became sole owner upon the woman’s death (BC Supreme Court Strikes down joint tenancy severance in estate dispute | Canadian Lawyer) (BC Supreme Court Strikes down joint tenancy severance in estate dispute | Canadian Lawyer). The court found no evidence that the elder ever wanted to undo her estate plan; in fact, she had signed a deed of gift confirming the granddaughter’s survivorship rights years prior (BC Supreme Court Strikes down joint tenancy severance in estate dispute | Canadian Lawyer) (BC Supreme Court Strikes down joint tenancy severance in estate dispute | Canadian Lawyer). The committee’s duty under the Patients Property Act is to act in the best interests of the incapacitated person – not to start redistributing assets based on what the committee personally thinks is “fair” for heirs. In practical terms: if you are managing an incapable parent’s finances, you cannot alter their will or beneficiary designations unless a court orders it. This case upholds the principle that an incapable person’s prior estate planning choices (like placing assets in joint tenancy, naming beneficiaries, etc.) should be respected unless maintaining them would actually harm the person’s interests during their lifetime.
-
Empowering beneficiaries to protect an estate: When an executor or fellow beneficiary is behaving improperly, the law provides tools to step in. An interesting 2024 decision, Chappell v. Chappell, 2024 BCSC 268, showed the court allowing a beneficiary to sue on behalf of an estate to recover assets. In that family, after the father died, one daughter (Brenda) had taken control of certain significant assets (real estate, bank accounts, retirement funds) either just before or just after his death, claiming them for herself (BC Supreme Court greenlights son's legal action to protect father's estate value in family dispute | Canadian Lawyer) (BC Supreme Court greenlights son's legal action to protect father's estate value in family dispute | Canadian Lawyer). Her brother Gerald believed those assets rightly belonged in their father’s estate to be divided equally under the will (BC Supreme Court greenlights son's legal action to protect father's estate value in family dispute | Canadian Lawyer). Since all three siblings were co-executors and beneficiaries, Gerald needed the court’s permission (leave) to commence an action in the estate’s name (essentially suing his sister to recover the property for the estate). The court reviewed the situation and granted him permission to proceed (BC Supreme Court greenlights son's legal action to protect father's estate value in family dispute | Canadian Lawyer) (BC Supreme Court greenlights son's legal action to protect father's estate value in family dispute | Canadian Lawyer). It found that Gerald’s claims were arguable – there was evidence suggesting, among other things, a possible resulting trust (i.e. that Brenda was holding assets that still really belonged to the father’s estate) and questions about the father’s mental capacity when certain transfers were made (BC Supreme Court greenlights son's legal action to protect father's estate value in family dispute | Canadian Lawyer). The judge was also satisfied that Gerald was acting in good faith for the benefit of the estate and other beneficiaries, not out of malice (BC Supreme Court greenlights son's legal action to protect father's estate value in family dispute | Canadian Lawyer). This case illustrates that if an executor or family member is wrongly diverting assets, the court can authorize another interested party to step into the executor’s shoes and seek justice. It’s a reminder that executors must act loyally and transparently; if they don’t, beneficiaries have recourse through the courts.
-
Streamlining probate and estate procedures: On the procedural side, BC has made it easier to deal with estate administration in some respects. Effective September 2024, the Supreme Court of BC updated its rules to allow affidavits to be sworn remotely by video on a permanent basis ( CBA British Columbia - NP 20: Affidavits for Use in Court Proceedings Rescinded Effective September 9, 2024 ). This means executors applying for probate can swear the necessary documents (such as the affidavit of the executor) via videoconference with a lawyer or commissioner, rather than needing to attend in person ( CBA British Columbia - NP 20: Affidavits for Use in Court Proceedings Rescinded Effective September 9, 2024 ). This change, initially an emergency COVID measure, is now a lasting convenience that saves time – especially useful if an executor lives far from BC or has mobility issues. Additionally, the probate court continues to accept electronic copies of wills (including electronic wills, as noted above) with a special form attesting it is a true copy of the original. Many filings can be done electronically through BC’s Court Services Online system. All these updates aim to reduce delays and make the probate process more accessible. Still, the paperwork and formalities can be daunting – executors should consider getting legal guidance to ensure all requirements are met and to avoid rejection of the application.
Conclusion: Staying Informed and Prepared
The past year or two have underscored that change is constant in the realm of wills and estates. BC has embraced technology (from electronic wills to virtual affidavits) to modernize estate planning and administration. At the same time, age-old principles – like the need for clear intention, the prohibition on undue influence, and the duty to provide for one’s family – continue to be vigorously enforced by our courts, sometimes in new ways. For individuals and families, the key message is to stay informed and plan ahead. Make sure your estate plan reflects current law and your current wishes. If you’re entering your senior years or helping an elderly relative, be alert to potential financial abuse or pressure from others. And if you’re dealing with the estate of a loved one who has passed, be aware of your rights – whether it’s the right to a fair share as a spouse or child, or the ability to challenge suspicious transactions that depleted the estate.
Estate disputes can be emotionally and financially draining. Fortunately, the recent developments we’ve discussed also offer reassurance: the legal system has robust tools to uphold fairness and true intent, from validating the will you meant to make, to correcting injustices in a will, to clawing back assets from those who obtained them improperly. By understanding these tools and developments, you can better protect your legacy and your loved ones.
If you have questions about how these recent changes in BC’s wills and estates law might affect your personal situation – for example, how to properly execute an electronic will, whether a will can be challenged, or what an executor’s responsibilities are – feel free to reach out to our Wills & Estates team. We are here to help you navigate these evolving laws and ensure your estate plan provides peace of mind for you and your family.
Sources:
- Wills, Estates and Succession Act (WESA), SBC 2009 c.13 (as amended) – provisions on electronic wills, will variation (s.60), and curing deficiencies (s.58).
- Walker Estate (Re), 2024 BCSC 792 – informal handwritten note accepted as a will (Handwritten note revokes will amendment, revives original will: BC Supreme Court | Canadian Lawyer) (Handwritten note revokes will amendment, revives original will: BC Supreme Court | Canadian Lawyer).
- Reid Estate, 2024 BCSC 1932 – informal note refused as a will (November 2024 | Disinherited) (November 2024 | Disinherited).
- King v. Vimhel, 2024 BCSC 1745 – predatory undue influence case, transfer set aside (BC Court Applies Resulting Trust and Undue Influence to Remedy a Predatory Relationship) (BC Court Applies Resulting Trust and Undue Influence to Remedy a Predatory Relationship).
- Lam v. Law Estate, 2024 BCSC 1561 – will varied for gender-biased disparity (BC Supreme Court orders will variation due to gender bias | Canadian Lawyer) (BC Supreme Court orders will variation due to gender bias | Canadian Lawyer).
- Hubert v. Ju, 2024 BCSC 2196 – joint tenancy severance by committee invalidated (BC Supreme Court Strikes down joint tenancy severance in estate dispute | Canadian Lawyer) (BC Supreme Court Strikes down joint tenancy severance in estate dispute | Canadian Lawyer).
- Chappell v. Chappell, 2024 BCSC 268 – leave granted to commence estate proceeding (BC Supreme Court greenlights son's legal action to protect father's estate value in family dispute | Canadian Lawyer) (BC Supreme Court greenlights son's legal action to protect father's estate value in family dispute | Canadian Lawyer).
- Boys and Girls Club of G.V. Foundation v. BC (AG), 2024 BCSC 442 – charitable trust cy-près application denied (Mission impractical: Varying charitable trust purposes, impracticality, and the Boys and Girls Club decision | Miller Thomson).
- BC Ministry of Attorney General, Make a Will Week 2024 – public information on electronic wills in BC (Make a Will Week - Province of British Columbia) (Make a Will Week - Province of British Columbia).
- BC Supreme Court Civil Rules (Rule 22-2(6.1)) – allowing affidavits by video conference (in force Sept 9, 2024) ( CBA British Columbia - NP 20: Affidavits for Use in Court Proceedings Rescinded Effective September 9, 2024 ).


