Judge says third-party estate administrator will reduce conflict amid siblings’ disputes
Where the deceased’s chosen co-executors have shown they cannot impartially and efficiently perform their joint responsibilities, the British Columbia Supreme Court has found it appropriate to appoint a neutral third-party estate administrator.
In Phagura v Frenette, 2026 BCSC 912, the deceased had four children. The parties were sisters and the eldest children. They had a third sister and one brother, the youngest.
Disputes arose among the siblings over the division and management of their mother’s estate and gifts she made while alive. For instance, the deceased allegedly gave the petitioner a $50,000 gift.
Beginning early March 2025, the deceased was in the hospital after a stroke and was unable to go home following another stroke she experienced while hospitalized.
Two grandchildren – the sons of the respondent and the third daughter – moved into the deceased’s home while she was in the hospital. In May and August 2025, the deceased allegedly gave cheques totalling $420,000, divided among the respondent, the third daughter, and their respective children.
The deceased moved to a long-term care facility sometime in September 2025, then died in October 2025. The grandchildren continued living in her home, which was the estate’s largest asset. The estate shouldered some of the grandchildren’s costs and expenses.
Given that the siblings’ father had predeceased their mother in December 2021, the deceased’s will dated February 2016:
- divided the estate residue equally among the four siblings
- appointed the parties as alternate joint co-executors
- designated the parties as their late mother’s joint attorneys under a December 2016 enduring power of attorney
The parties brought competing requests to oust each other as joint co-executors. In her petition, the petitioner sought to pass over the respondent and to appoint herself as sole executor based on a conflict of interest.
The respondent opposed the petition. In her notice of application, she wanted the court to pass over both the petitioner and herself in favour of an independent trust company due to their inability to work together. Alternatively, she sought to dismiss the petition and maintain both joint co-executors.
In the proceedings, the brother supported the petitioner, while the third sister backed the respondent. The petitioner alleged that the beneficiaries’ interests required the sale of the house, and the respondent disagreed.
Both sides challenged certain gifts the deceased made during her lifetime, including gifts to the petitioner for travel and expenses, and $50,000 provided to the brother.
Third party appointed
The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the primary relief the petitioner sought and instead granted two orders that the respondent requested.
Specifically, the court passed over both parties as the estate’s personal representatives and instead appointed BMO Trust Company as estate administrator and trustee.
Based on the evidence, the court determined that the deceased wanted all her children to benefit fairly and to the greatest extent possible from her estate, rather than having them fight about money matters.
The court recognized that the petitioner’s requested relief would depart from the deceased’s wishes. The court acknowledged that appointing a neutral third-party estate administrator would also be a departure.
Ultimately, the court ruled that appointing a neutral third-party estate administrator would benefit all beneficiaries and their extended family, as well as reduce emotional conflict among family members.
The court accepted that a neutral third-party estate administrator would cost the estate and would not necessarily avoid all future disputes.
However, the court held that estate administration by a neutral third party would likely be less contentious, more efficient, and no more expensive than administration by either the petitioner alone or both parties together.
Lastly, the court found it appropriate for the estate to bear both parties’ reasonable indemnity costs. The court noted that the proceedings were necessary because the will’s joint appointment of co-executors could no longer continue in the circumstances.
