A new case out of British Columbia raises an interesting question – whether a court can decide an issue that is not the subject of a proper motion or application in order to advance the administration of an estate.
In Rhodes v Myers, 2024 BCCA 165, the appellant argued that the lower court made procedural and substantive errors by deciding the fate of a ring owned by the deceased that was not the subject of an application. During the proceedings, the parties appeared before the chambers judge to address a variety of disputes related to estate administration other than the ring, but it soon became clear that the executors of the estate were in a deadlock as to how the appellant, who was also one of the executors, had handled the ring. The appellant claimed that the deceased had gifted the ring to her before her death, whereas the appellant’s siblings, including the other executor, argued that the deceased did not have capacity to gift the ring to the appellant and had also promised to give the ring to a different child years earlier. The ring was not the subject of a disposition in the deceased’s will – the will simply left the estate to the deceased’s four children in equal parts, and authorized the executors to decide how to allocate the assets in the estate.
While there was no proper application before the court regarding the ring, the chambers judge held that she had jurisdiction to decide whether or not the deceased had gifted the ring to the appellant, as “to do so would assist the parties to move forward and conclude the estate without further litigation”. The judge ultimately found that the deceased lacked capacity when the appellant claimed that the deceased gave the ring to her, and ordered the appellant to distribute the ring to her sibling who had previously been promised the ring as part of the estate administration.
The appellant tried to get the decision of the lower court reversed on appeal. In its decision, the British Columbia Court of Appeal agreed with the appellant in principle that it would generally be inappropriate to seek an order from the court that was “truly independent” of the relief being sought without filing an independent application or motion.
However, the Court of Appeal ultimately concluded that the chambers judge’s determination of the fate of the ring was not “independent of the matters raised” before the court. Since the appellant had requested an order vesting the estate assets during the original proceedings, in addition to “such further and other relief as the Court deems just”, the lower court could address whether the deceased had gifted the ring to the appellant. The Court of Appeal explained:
Had the judge not addressed the issue, the order that all assets of the estate of the deceased be vested in the trustee would have left uncertainty as to whether the bolt ring was an asset included in the order. It was open to the judge to resolve that question to clarify the scope of the vesting order and avoid further litigation.
The Court of Appeal also recognized two other bases upon which the lower court had jurisdiction to decide whether or not the ring was an estate asset:
- Because the executors were at a stalemate and the court “has the equitable jurisdiction, statutory and inherent, to intervene to break a deadlock of trustees where necessary to carry out the terms of the trust”, the court had jurisdiction to determine whether the deceased had gifted the ring to the appellant.
- In light of the modern approach to civil procedure, which allows trial procedures to be tailored on a case-by-case basis in the interests of proportionality and access to justice, the court also had jurisdiction to address the issue of the ring. The Court of Appeal made it clear that the lower court could address this matter since “the amount involved was nominal, the issue was not complex, and the importance of the issue to the administration of the dispute related primarily to the need to resolve the stalemate between the trustees”.
The Court of Appeal’s focus on the modern approach to civil procedure is quite apt given the value of the ring in this case. While assets that are the subject of estate litigation tend to be quite valuable, the ring in Rhodes had no real monetary value. In fact, in 2021 the firm blogged about the lower court decision, reported at Rhodes v Myers, 2021 BCSC 2043, as an example of how estate litigation can arise with respect to assets with sentimental value, but no monetary worth: see The High Value of Estate Assets of No Monetary Value. With this new decision, the Court of Appeal is essentially confirming that litigation focusing on the distribution of estate assets with little monetary value should not be encouraged and likely will not merit appellate intervention.
Thank you for reading, and have a great day!