Administrators seeking access to Apple account ask Alberta Court of King’s Bench for specific order
The Alberta Court of King’s Bench confirmed that a grant of administration was a court order indicating that the administrators had full legal authority over the deceased’s digital assets, meaning that Apple Canada Inc could not demand a further specific order.
Apple – the respondent in Wada Estate (Re), 2026 ABKB 309 – allowed users to select a legacy contact, a designated individual who could access the Apple account of a deceased person.
A man who did not utilize Apple’s legacy contact service died, with people unable to access his digital assets. The applicants in this case were the administrators of his estate.
The administrators requested control over the deceased’s Apple accounts. Apple explained that it required a court order that provided specific information before it could grant their request.
The administrators submitted the requested information and a grant of administration to Apple. However, Apple reiterated that it needed a further court order in the form previously specified.
The administrators thus applied for a court order stating that they had the legal power to deal with the deceased’s digital assets.
Authority of administrators
Although California law governed the deceased’s relationship with Apple, the technology company said it would deal with the administrators if an order of the Alberta Court of King’s Bench confirmed their authority as estate representatives under Alberta law.
The court held that Alberta law did not require a further court order in this case.
As the court explained, after receiving the grant of administration, Apple should deal with the administrators as if they were the deceased and could not require them to provide a further court order if it had not required a court order to deal with the deceased when he was alive.
Efficiency
The Alberta government and the Alberta Court of King’s Bench have invested in the electronic processing of estate applications in an effort to:
- Lower estates’ costs
- Enable more value to flow to beneficiaries
- Issue grants of administration and probate, court orders aiming to facilitate administrators’ and executors’ activities on estates’ behalf
The court found that permitting third parties to demand that estates’ personal representatives seek redundant court orders before dealing with them would undermine the efficiencies of the online process and force estates to bear the costs of unnecessary applications.
“This Court is not in the business of issuing duplicative orders to assuage risk averse technology companies who are unwilling to learn the laws of the jurisdictions in which they do business,” Justice Colin Feasby wrote for the court.
Need for written reasons
Despite the straightforward and unopposed chambers application, Feasby took the unusual step of providing written reasons due to the unjustified and needless burden on estates and the courts that would arise if large technology companies refused to deal with estates’ personal representatives without a specific court order.
While acknowledging the discretion of judges over costs, Feasby said such a technology company might face significant costs penalties if they demanded a specific court order from an estate administrator or executor who submitted:
- a grant of administration or a grant of probate providing for power over digital assets
- these reasons, which could explain Alberta’s relevant law
“Going forward, an uncooperative technology company that demands a duplicative court order as a condition of doing business should be prepared to explain why they should not pay solicitor and his own client costs,” Feasby wrote.
