We have previously blogged, numerous times, on the impact of murder on the devolution of estates. The topic seems to be particularly intriguing (to us, at least).  This blog is another one. 

In Unger Estate (Re), 2022 BCSC 189 (CanLII), C pleaded guilty to the murder of his mother. The mother was survived by her two sons, C and L. C had one child, who was born 11 days after the mother’s death. 

The mother died leaving a will that divided her estate between C and L. If a child predeceased leaving issue, the predeceased child’s share would go to his issue. If a gift failed, the will provided that the share would go to two charities. 

The court found that the rule of public policy that excludes a person responsible for another person’s death from taking any benefit because of their criminal act clearly applied, and that C could not receive a share of his mother’s estate. The question the court then had to face was who was entitled to C’s share. 

The court found that C’s share of the estate would pass to C’s infant daughter.  The court acknowledged that the “slayer rule”, which precluded the murderer from receiving any benefit from the estate, extended to those claiming under or through the murderer. However, in this case, the infant was not claiming under or through C, but was claiming through the terms of the will. The court held that “less violence is done to the intention of the Will-maker to deem the person responsible for the Will-maker’s death to have died before the Will-maker and the Will should be read as if [C] pre-deceased his mother and the child of [C] is entitled to [C]’s share of the residue”. 

Thank you for reading. 

Paul Trudelle