{"id":2362,"date":"2026-11-12T02:48:54","date_gmt":"2026-11-12T02:48:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lawgicalcorp.com\/blog\/caregiver-claim-against-estate-bc\/"},"modified":"2026-11-12T15:10:33","modified_gmt":"2026-11-12T15:10:33","slug":"caregiver-claim-against-estate-bc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lawgicalcorp.com\/blog\/caregiver-claim-against-estate-bc\/","title":{"rendered":"I cared for my parent for years: can I claim against the estate in BC?"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Pardeep S. Grewal<\/a>, lawyer at Lawgical Law Corporation \u00b7 Reviewed November 11, 2026<\/p>\n

Pardeep S. Grewal is a lawyer at Lawgical Law Corporation, called to the BC bar in 2024, and a member of the Law Society of British Columbia<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Updated November 11, 2026: the Wills, Estates and Succession Act (ss. 60, 61), the Limitation Act (s. 6) and the court decisions cited below checked that day.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

Possibly, yes.<\/strong> Unpaid care can support a claim for unjust enrichment<\/strong> against the estate: the parent was enriched, you were deprived, and there was no legal reason for it.<\/p>\n

Caring out of love doesn’t rule it out<\/strong>, but the court looks at what both of you reasonably expected.<\/p>\n

A child left out of the will<\/strong> may also have a wills variation claim: 180 days from the grant (WESA s. 61).<\/p>\n

The legal test<\/a> \u00b7 Book a consultation<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The lawyers who handle these estate files<\/p>\n

\"SundeepSundeep S. Grewal<\/span>Barrister and Solicitor<\/span><\/a>\"PardeepPardeep S. Grewal<\/span>Barrister and Solicitor<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n
\nAbout our lawyers<\/summary>\n
\n

Sundeep S. Grewal<\/a><\/strong> founded Lawgical Law Corporation and practises probate, estate litigation and immigration. He has represented clients in the Provincial and Supreme Courts of British Columbia, from chambers applications to contested trials.<\/p>\n

Pardeep S. Grewal<\/a><\/strong> is a probate, estates and immigration lawyer known for clear communication and practical strategy.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/details>\n<\/div>\n

A child, relative or friend who cared for a parent for years, without pay, may be able to make a claim against the estate in BC, even if the will leaves them nothing extra. The usual route is unjust enrichment: the parent received valuable care, the caregiver gave up time, income or opportunities, and there was no legal reason, such as a contract or a clear intention to give the care for free, that justifies the parent keeping that benefit. The court can award money based on the value of the care, or, where the care was tied to a specific property the caregiver was led to expect, a share of that property. A child who was also left out of the will may have a separate wills variation claim, with a strict 180-day deadline.<\/p>\n

Lawgical Law Corporation<\/a>, a probate and estate litigation law firm with offices in Surrey<\/a>, Abbotsford<\/a> and Vancouver, BC, acts for caregivers, executors and beneficiaries in claims against estates; this guide is by Pardeep S. Grewal.<\/p>\n

The legal test for unjust enrichment<\/h2>\n

To succeed, the caregiver must establish three things (Garland v. Consumers’ Gas Co.<\/em>, 2004 SCC 25):<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. An enrichment<\/strong> of the parent, such as care, housekeeping, transport or money they would otherwise have paid for;<\/li>\n
  2. A corresponding deprivation<\/strong> of the caregiver, such as unpaid time, lost wages or their own money spent; and<\/li>\n
  3. No juristic reason<\/strong> for the enrichment.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The established juristic reasons are a contract, a disposition of law, a donative intent (the care was meant as a gift) and other valid legal obligations. Once the caregiver makes out a basic case, the estate must show a reason why the parent should keep the benefit.<\/p>\n

    “I did it out of love”: does that defeat the claim?<\/h2>\n

    Not by itself. Household services provided without pay are a common basis for these claims in estates, and courts have accepted that being willing to care for family out of love doesn’t stop the care from being a deprivation. But the court looks closely at the reasonable expectations of both people. Services children perform for the family may be denied recovery where there was no reasonable expectation of payment, while a caregiver who was led to expect they would receive the home has a stronger case. Being a beneficiary of the estate doesn’t, on its own, defeat the claim either.<\/p>\n

    An executor generally can’t claim for unjust enrichment for work done as executor, because the executor’s duty is itself the legal reason. That work is paid through executor fees<\/a> instead.<\/p>\n

    How the award is valued<\/h2>\n
    \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Ways the court values a caregiver’s claim<\/caption>\n
    Approach<\/th>\nWhat it measures<\/th>\nWhen it fits<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    Value received (quantum meruit)<\/td>\nWhat the care would have cost on the open market, often using wages for similar work<\/td>\nMost caregiving claims<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Value survived<\/td>\nThe value the caregiver’s contributions created or preserved in an asset<\/td>\nWhere the care helped keep or build a specific property<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Constructive trust<\/td>\nA share of a specific asset, such as the house<\/td>\nOnly if money isn’t enough and there’s a substantial, direct link between the contribution and the property<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

    The Supreme Court of Canada has rejected valuing these claims only on a fee-for-service basis, allowing a more flexible approach that includes a “value survived basis” (Kerr v. Baranow<\/em>, 2011 SCC 10). Benefits the caregiver received, such as free housing, can be offset.<\/p>\n

    Evidence that helps<\/h2>\n