{"id":2434,"date":"2026-11-12T06:52:53","date_gmt":"2026-11-12T06:52:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lawgicalcorp.com\/blog\/estate-left-to-charity-friend-caregiver-bc\/"},"modified":"2026-11-12T06:52:53","modified_gmt":"2026-11-12T06:52:53","slug":"estate-left-to-charity-friend-caregiver-bc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lawgicalcorp.com\/blog\/estate-left-to-charity-friend-caregiver-bc\/","title":{"rendered":"Estate left to a charity, friend or caregiver instead of the children: what BC courts do"},"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. 52, 60) and the court decisions cited below checked that day.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

Children and spouses can claim.<\/strong> A will that leaves them out in favour of people the law doesn’t protect can be varied (WESA s. 60).<\/p>\n

Less deference:<\/strong> where the beneficiaries are owed no legal or moral obligation, such as a charity, friend or neighbour, BC courts give less weight to the will-maker’s choice.<\/p>\n

The exception:<\/strong> a beneficiary who contributed substantially or cared for the will-maker for years can hold a stronger position.<\/p>\n

What courts have done<\/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

Some of the clearest wills variation cases in BC involve a parent who left most of the estate to a church, a charity, friends, neighbours or a recent acquaintance, while the children received little or nothing. Under WESA s. 60, a spouse or child can ask the court to vary a will that doesn’t make adequate, just and equitable provision for them. When the people who benefit under the will are owed no legal or moral obligation by the will-maker, BC courts have said they may give less deference to the will-maker’s freedom to leave property as they wish, and have varied wills to give children a substantial share, in one case half of an estate that had left $1 million to a church. The picture changes where the beneficiary helped build the estate or cared for the will-maker over many years; courts are more likely to refuse a claim in those cases. A late change of will in favour of a caregiver can also raise questions about undue influence, which is a separate challenge.<\/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 children and spouses left out of a will in favour of others; this guide is by Pardeep S. Grewal.<\/p>\n

Why these wills get less deference<\/h2>\n

The court weighs the will-maker’s freedom to leave property as they choose against their obligations to spouse and children. When the beneficiaries are, in the court’s words, “strangers” to the wills variation law, such as friends, neighbours, nephews, siblings of the will-maker or charities, there’s no competing obligation on their side of the scale. The children’s moral claim then carries more weight, especially in a larger estate.<\/p>\n

What BC courts have done<\/h2>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Wills favouring people outside the family<\/caption>\n
Will left the estate to<\/th>\nResult<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
A church ($1 million), with $1,000 to each child; the will-maker had delusions and irrational reasons<\/td>\nVaried so the children shared 50% (Flurry v. Fuller<\/em>, 2002 BCSC 1571, 2004 BCCA 218)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Friendly neighbours, disinheriting a son<\/td>\nSon awarded 50% (Moore v. Drummond<\/em>, 2013 BCSC 1762)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Acquaintances, with reasons for cutting out the children that weren’t based on fact<\/td>\nVaried in the children’s favour (Petrie v. Burnett<\/em>, 2008 BCSC 1503)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
A nephew, partly<\/td>\nThe nephew was treated as a “stranger” to the claim (Re Berger<\/em>, 1978)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
A friend who had worked hard on and spent money on the will-maker’s property<\/td>\nComfortable adult children still received provision (Re Magdell Estate<\/em>, 1978)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

When the beneficiary was a caregiver<\/h2>\n

Courts are more likely to refuse a claim where the beneficiaries contributed substantially to building the estate, or played a significant role in caring for the will-maker. A caregiver who gave years of unpaid care may also have their own claim, for unjust enrichment. See caregiver claims<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But a new will made late in life, in favour of a caregiver or new friend who arranged the lawyer or controlled access to the will-maker, can raise suspicious circumstances. Under WESA s. 52, where someone was in a position where the potential for dependence or domination was present, the burden can shift to them to show they didn’t use undue influence. See undue influence<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Who can and can’t claim<\/h2>\n