Estate Litigation in BC: Passing Over and Removing Executors

Being named as an executor in a will does not necessarily mean that person will ultimately administer the estate. In British Columbia, the Supreme Court of British Columbia has authority to pass over a proposed executor before probate is granted, or remove and replace an executor after appointment, where doing so is necessary for the proper administration of the estate.

These disputes most commonly arise where there are concerns about conflict of interest, hostility between beneficiaries, allegations of misconduct, delay, incapacity, or questions about whether the executor can act impartially. In blended families and high-conflict estates, disputes over who should control the estate can become as significant as the underlying inheritance issues themselves.

Importantly, the court will not interfere simply because beneficiaries dislike the executor or because there is ordinary family tension. Executors are often family members, and some degree of conflict is common in estate administration. The court’s focus is the welfare of the beneficiaries and the proper administration of the estate. The question is whether the executor can realistically perform the role honestly, neutrally, and efficiently despite the surrounding conflict or circumstances.

British Columbia courts continue to emphasize that executors occupy a fiduciary role and must avoid disabling conflicts of interest. Where an executor’s personal interests materially conflict with their duties to the estate, the court may intervene.

In Thomson Estate (Re), 2023 BCSC 1591, the court removed an executor where the executor had previously commenced litigation against the estate and faced potential personal exposure to costs. The court concluded the conflict was significant enough to undermine the executor’s ability to act impartially in the administration of the estate.

Similarly, in Eftekhari v. Eftekhari, 2025 BCSC 942, the court removed an executor where there were serious conflicts involving claims to beneficial ownership of estate property, use of estate funds in relation to personal disputes, and substantial hostility toward a beneficiary. The case illustrates that where an executor becomes personally entangled in disputes over estate assets, the administration itself may become compromised.

Courts may also pass over a proposed executor before probate where there are concerns the executor cannot properly investigate claims involving themselves or closely related parties. In Chiu Estate (Re), 2025 BCSC2196, the court passed over both the named executor and alternate executor because potential estate claims against them created a disabling conflict of interest. The court concluded that independent administration was necessary for the proper handling of the estate.

These cases reflect an increasingly practical approach by BC courts. The issue is not punishment, nor whether the executor is personally “good” or “bad.” The focus is whether the estate can be administered fairly, efficiently, and with sufficient neutrality to protect the interests of the beneficiaries and the estate itself.

Timing is often important. Concerns about an executor are generally easier to address before probate is granted. Once an executor receives authority to administer the estate, they may already have access to estate assets, records, and financial information. In appropriate cases, beneficiaries may seek urgent court intervention to preserve assets or prevent further conflict.

Where conflict is severe, the court may appoint a neutral third party, such as a trust company or independent lawyer, to administer the estate. While this can increase administrative costs, it may also reduce litigation risk and help preserve estate assets by removing the administration from ongoing family conflict.

Passing over or removing an executor is considered a serious remedy because it interferes with the will-maker’s choice of executor. For that reason, the court requires more than suspicion, distrust, or ordinary disagreement. There must be evidence showing that intervention is necessary to protect the proper administration of the estate and the interests of the beneficiaries.

Sources

1. Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13, ss. 158–159.
2. Thomson Estate (Re), 2026 BCSC 106.
3. Eftekhari v. Eftekhari, 2025 BCSC 942.
4. Chiu Estate (Re), 2025 BCSC 2196.

‍