The recent decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in O’Hara v. Schaefer (2025 BCSC 1668) serves as a reminder of the importance of proper pleadings in estate litigation, particularly when advancing trust claims over jointly held property.
Background
The dispute centered on a family home (the “Family Residence”) purchased in 1989 by Alfred and Erna Schaefer, who held title as joint tenants. When Alfred passed away in 2001, ownership passed automatically to Erna as the surviving joint tenant. Erna lived in the residence until her own death in 2023.
Her will, probated in 2024, specifically excluded Alfred’s three children, including the plaintiff, Ms. O’Hara, citing lack of contact. Instead, Erna’s estate directed that the Family Residence be sold, with the proceeds to be distributed to her chosen beneficiaries.
Ms. O’Hara launched proceedings, alleging that the property was held in trust for her benefit. She advanced claims of express trust, resulting trust, and constructive trust.
The Defendant’s Application
The estate of Erna Schaefer applied under Rule 9-5(1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules to strike the plaintiff’s notice of civil claim (“NOCC”), or alternatively, for summary judgment. The estate also sought the release of the sale proceeds of the Family Residence, which were being held in trust pending the outcome of the litigation.
Legal Principles
The Court reviewed the well-established test for striking pleadings: a claim must be “plain and obvious” to have no reasonable prospect of success before it will be struck (R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2011 SCC 42). Bald assertions and speculation are not material facts.
- Trust claims, whether express, resulting, or constructive, require clear factual foundations:
- Express trusts must demonstrate certainty of intention, subject matter, and objects.
- Resulting trusts typically arise where one party holds title but gave no value for the property.
- Constructive trusts require proof of unjust enrichment, including an enrichment, a corresponding deprivation, and no juristic reason.
Analysis
- Justice Ball carefully examined the pleadings:
- Express Trust: While Ms. O’Hara alleged that Erna promised to leave her the Family Residence, there were no facts to show any steps taken to constitute a trust or sever the joint tenancy. The Court found no certainty of intention.
- Resulting Trust: Ms. O’Hara alleged that her father intended her to share in his estate and that Erna’s title after his death was subject to trust. However, title passed by right of survivorship. The pleadings lacked any material facts to rebut this presumption.
- Constructive Trust: Ms. O’Hara stated she cared for her father in his final days. While sympathetic, these assertions did not amount to an enrichment of Erna or a deprivation to Ms. O’Hara sufficient to ground an unjust enrichment claim.
Ultimately, the Court found that the pleadings mirrored those struck in Lessor v. Toll Estate (2015 BCSC 427), vague references and oral promises with no evidence of actual steps to effectuate a trust.
Proposed Amendments
The plaintiff sought to amend her NOCC to add further details. The Court reviewed the proposed amendments and found them equally deficient, comprised of conclusions rather than material facts. Leave to amend was denied.
Conclusion
The Court struck the pleadings in their entirety without leave to amend, dismissed the claim, and ordered that the sale proceeds of the Family Residence be released to the estate. Costs were awarded to the defendant.
Key Takeaways
- Joint tenancy remains powerful, absent severance, the right of survivorship will prevail, even against alleged oral promises.
- Trust claims demand particulars, courts require material facts, not general assertions.
- Pleadings matter, failure to properly plead essential elements of a claim may be fatal, with no second chance to amend.
This case underscores the need for careful drafting and evidentiary support when challenging estate distributions, particularly in cases involving long-standing joint tenancies.
Boris