Eckford v. Vanderwood et al., (2014) 357 B.C.A.C. 277 (CA)
| Judge | Chiasson, Stromberg-Stein and Goepel, JJ.A. |
| Court | Court of Appeal (British Columbia) |
| Case Date | May 26, 2014 |
| Jurisdiction | British Columbia |
| Citations | (2014), 357 B.C.A.C. 277 (CA);2014 BCCA 261 |
Eckford v. Vanderwood (2014), 357 B.C.A.C. 277 (CA);
611 W.A.C. 277
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2014] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JL.010
Kathryn Eckford (appellant/plaintiff) v. Rhonda Muriel Sydney Vanderwood, Executrix and Trustee of the Last Will and Testament of Johan Gerard Van Der Woude also known as John Garry Vanderwood, Dyan Vanderwood, Sonja Anne Vanderwood and Tye Moon Vanderwood (defendants/respondents)
(CA041219; 2014 BCCA 261)
Indexed As: Eckford v. Vanderwood et al.
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Chiasson, Stromberg-Stein and Goepel, JJ.A.
June 30, 2014.
Summary:
Ms. Eckford lived with Johan Vanderwood for some four years. In 2005, after they had commenced their relationship but before they began to live together, Vanderwood executed his Will, leaving his estate to his mother and two adult children.The Will did not make any provision for Eckford. Vanderwood (57 years old) died unexpectedly in 2010. Eckford (56 years old) received the matrimonial home through the right of survivorship, thereby receiving more from the estate than any of the other claimants. Her health rapidly declined within a short time of Vanderwood's death. Eckford brought an action under the Wills Variation Act (B.C.), claiming that Vanderwood did not make adequate provision for her proper maintenance and support. She sought an order that the Will be varied to make her the only beneficiary of the estate. The matter proceeded by way of summary trial based on affidavit evidence only.
The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1729, dismissed the action, finding that Vanderwood's disposition of his assets made adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of Eckford. Eckford appealed. On the hearing of the appeal, she resiled from the ground of appeal concerning the legal and moral claims of Vanderwood's 81 year old mother.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal with costs. "[I]n an appeal of a decision in a wills variation action, this Court is in the same position as the trial judge and exercises an independent discretion in determining whether the Testator has fulfilled his duties under the Act. I find in this case that he has. I agree with the trial judge's conclusion that given the length of their relationship, the fact that Ms. Eckford was not a dependent spouse, and the competing moral claims of his adult children, the Testator's disposition of his assets was within the wide range of options that could be considered appropriate in these circumstances."
Family Law - Topic 6601
Dependents' relief legislation - General principles - General (incl. interpretation of legislation) - See paragraphs 63 to 65.
Family Law - Topic 6603
Dependent's relief legislation - What constitutes "adequate, just and equitable" - See paragraph 39.
Family Law - Topic 6604
Dependents' relief legislation - What constitutes "proper maintenance and support" - See paragraphs 63 to 65.
Family Law - Topic 6610
Dependent's relief legislation - General principles - Moral obligation of testator - General - See paragraphs 66 to 79.
Family Law - Topic 6665
Dependents' relief legislation - Entitlement - Time for determining whether adequate provision was made for a dependent - See paragraphs 47 to 62.
Family Law - Topic 6672
Dependents' relief legislation - Entitlement - Proper test - See paragraph 65.
Family Law - Topic 6674
Dependents' relief legislation - Entitlement - Circumstances when widow's claim denied - See paragraphs 73 to 79.
Family Law - Topic 6683
Dependents' relief legislation - Considerations on making awards - Events after the testator's death - See paragraphs 47 to 62.
Family Law - Topic 6763
Dependent's relief legislation - Practice - Appeals - See paragraphs 40 to 44.
Practice - Topic 5255.7
Trials - General - Summary trials - Appeals - See paragraphs 42 to 44.
Cases Noticed:
Tataryn et al. v. Tataryn Estate, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 807; 169 N.R. 60; 46 B.C.A.C. 255; 75 W.A.C. 255, appld. [para. 37].
Graham v. Chalmers et al. (2010), 279 B.C.A.C. 277; 473 W.A.C. 277; 2010 BCCA 13, refd to. [para. 40].
Doucette v. Doucette Estate et al. (2009), 275 B.C.A.C. 226; 465 W.A.C. 226; 2009 BCCA 393, refd to. [para. 40].
Tangerine Financial Products Limited Partnership et al. v. Reeves Family Trust et al. (2013), 339 B.C.A.C. 223; 578 W.A.C. 223; 2013 BCCA 283, refd to. [para. 41].
Icahn Partners LP et al. v. Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. et al. (2011), 306 B.C.A.C. 173; 516 W.A.C. 173; 2011 BCCA 228, refd to. [para. 41].
Orangeville Raceway Ltd. v. Wood Gundy Inc. et al. (1995), 59 B.C.A.C. 241; 98 W.A.C. 241; 6 B.C.L.R.(3d) 391 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].
Wilson v. Lougheed Estate, [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1868; 2010 BCSC 1868, refd to. [para. 47].
Mawdsley v. Meshen Estate et al., [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1099; 2010 BCSC 1099, affd. (2012), 317 B.C.A.C. 247; 540 W.A.C. 247; 2012 BCCA 91, refd to. [para. 47].
Dunsdon v. Dunsdon et al., [2012] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1274; 2012 BCSC 1274, refd to. [para. 47].
Landy v. Landy Estate (1991), 8 B.C.A.C. 130; 17 W.A.C. 130; 60 B.C.L.R.(2d) 282 (C.A.), appld. [para. 49].
Hall v. Hall Estate (2011), 309 B.C.A.C. 224; 523 W.A.C. 224; 2011 BCCA 354, refd to. [para. 54].
McBride v. Voth et al., [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 443; 2010 BCSC 443, refd to. [para. 66].
Lukie v. Helgason (1976), 72 D.L.R.(3d) 395 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].
Statutes Noticed:
Wills Variation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 490, sect. 2 [para. 36].
Counsel:
D.J. Manson, for the appellant;
C. AuBuchon, for the respondents, Dyan Vanderwood, Sonja Anne Vanderwood and Tye Moon Vanderwood.
This appeal was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on May 26, 2014, before Chiasson, Stromberg-Stein and Goepel, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. In written reasons by Goepel, J.A., the Court delivered the following judgment, dated June 30, 2014.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McAuley v Genaille, 2017 MBCA 69
...on this approach is Tataryn v Tataryn Estate, [1994] 2 SCR 807. See also Kish v Sobchak Estate, 2016 BCCA 65; and Eckford v Vanderwood, 2014 BCCA 261 at para [50] Tataryn was decided under British Columbia’s previous legislation, the Wills Variation Act, RSBC 1979, c 435. However, the entit......
-
Peterson v. Welwood, 2018 BCSC 1379
...date at which to assess the value of the estate: Graham v. Chalmers, 2010 BCCA 13 at para. 35; see also Eckford v. Vanderwood, 2014 BCCA 261 at para. [192] The gross value of the estate declared for probate purposes was $316,969.29. However, this figure does not include the Canada Savings B......
-
Unger v. Unger Estate, 2017 BCSC 1946
...made, the second step is to consider what provision would be adequate, just and equitable in the circumstances: Eckford v. Vanderwood, 2014 BCCA 261 at para. 49.[80] The leading case in the area, Tataryn v. Tataryn Estate, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 807 [Tataryn] sets out the two fundamental interests......
-
Hancock v. Hancock, [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 2398
...whether she has made adequate provision: Mawdsley v. Meshen , 2010 BCSC 1099 at para. 317, aff'd 2012 BCCA 91; Eckford v . Vanderwood, 2014 BCCA 261 at para. 53. [58] It is uncontroversial that neither the plaintiffs nor Marnie have any legal claim against the estate. I turn to address the ......
-
McAuley v Genaille, 2017 MBCA 69
...on this approach is Tataryn v Tataryn Estate, [1994] 2 SCR 807. See also Kish v Sobchak Estate, 2016 BCCA 65; and Eckford v Vanderwood, 2014 BCCA 261 at para [50] Tataryn was decided under British Columbia’s previous legislation, the Wills Variation Act, RSBC 1979, c 435. However, the entit......
-
Peterson v. Welwood, 2018 BCSC 1379
...date at which to assess the value of the estate: Graham v. Chalmers, 2010 BCCA 13 at para. 35; see also Eckford v. Vanderwood, 2014 BCCA 261 at para. [192] The gross value of the estate declared for probate purposes was $316,969.29. However, this figure does not include the Canada Savings B......
-
Unger v. Unger Estate, 2017 BCSC 1946
...made, the second step is to consider what provision would be adequate, just and equitable in the circumstances: Eckford v. Vanderwood, 2014 BCCA 261 at para. 49.[80] The leading case in the area, Tataryn v. Tataryn Estate, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 807 [Tataryn] sets out the two fundamental interests......
-
Hancock v. Hancock, [2014] B.C.T.C. Uned. 2398
...whether she has made adequate provision: Mawdsley v. Meshen , 2010 BCSC 1099 at para. 317, aff'd 2012 BCCA 91; Eckford v . Vanderwood, 2014 BCCA 261 at para. 53. [58] It is uncontroversial that neither the plaintiffs nor Marnie have any legal claim against the estate. I turn to address the ......
-
What Types Of Assets Do Courts Consider In Deciding Wills Variation Claims?
...Tataryn v. Tataryn, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 807 2 Wong v. Cheung Estate, 2015 BCSC 1741 3 Eckford v. Van Der Woude Estate, 2013 BCSC 1729, aff'd 2014 BCCA 261 4 Inch v Stead Estate, 2007 BCSC 1249 The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist a......
-
Court Of Appeal In The Position Of A Trial Court In Wills Variation Appeals
...Eckford v. Vanderwood, 2014 BCCA 261, the British Columbia Court of Appeal (the "Court") was faced with an appeal of a wills variation action. At trial, the application to vary the Will was denied. On appeal, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial decision, thus refusing to var......