• Link to Facebook
  • Link to Instagram
  • Link to LinkedIn
  • Link to X
  • Link to Youtube
  • News & Articles
  • Decisions and Settlements
  • Pay Online
1-800-243-5353 | 250-542-5353
Nixon Wenger LLP
  • Our Team
    • Our Lawyers
    • Our History
  • Practice Areas
    • Business Law
    • Employment Law
    • Family Law
    • General Litigation
    • Insurance and Health Law
    • Personal Injury
    • Real Estate
    • Wills and Estates
  • Careers
    • Lawyer Careers
    • Articling Student Careers
    • Support Staff Careers
    • Apply Online
  • Community
    • In the Community
    • Paul Nixon’s Legacy
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Avoid Probate Fees

Wills and Estates, Family Law, Business Law, Blog

Probate fees are fees paid to the province to obtain a Grant of Probate from the British Columbia Supreme Court when a person dies. The fee is based on the value of the deceased person’s assets and can be generally estimated at 1.4% of the value of the assets. There are some adjustments, but the 1.4% provides a small overestimate of the fee. A Grant of Probate is generally required to enable the Executor to sell or otherwise deal with the deceased person`s assets.

However, not all of a person`s assets while alive may form part of that person`s estate and require a Grant of Probate to enable transfer. For example, an RRSP, RRIF, or TFSA that designates a beneficiary who survives the deceased person, will transfer directly to that beneficiary and not form part of the deceased`s estate that is subject to probate. Life insurance naming a beneficiary will go to the named beneficiary and not become part of the estate. And assets that are owned with one or more other persons as joint tenants can pass to the surviving joint tenants rather than to the estate.

Owning assets as joint tenants is a common circumstance for spouses. Most couples will own their home as joint tenants, have joint bank accounts, and often own vehicles jointly. For most couples*, it makes sense to also name the spouse as beneficiary for life insurance, RRSPs, RRIFs, and TFSAs. Consequently, upon the death of one spouse, all assets may transfer to the surviving spouse without the need to obtain a Grant of Probate.

Given the savings of time and money in avoiding a need for probate when the first spouse dies, we find that many surviving spouses are interested in adding children to title to a home or recreational property, or to bank accounts, in an effort to avoid future probate fees. While that can be effective to avoid probate, the transfer of ownership has many consequences that may not be intended.

Adding another person to title, or to a bank account, is a transfer of ownership. If the asset were a recreational property or an investment account, the transfer will be a disposition for income tax purposes and may trigger an obligation to pay capital gains tax. If you add a child to title to your principal residence and that child does not live in the residence, capital gains tax could become payable on part of the future increase in value of the home as part of the principal residence exemption may be lost. Once ownership is changed, control is lost, such that any future decision regarding a home or recreational property, including whether or not to sell or mortgage it, will require agreement of all owners. The asset would also be at risk of a claim by any creditors of the person that was added as an owner as well as claims by that person’s spouse in a family law claim.

Notwithstanding the consequences of adding a joint owner to an asset, there are circumstances where it is a good planning option. It is most important to clearly understand both the intended and unintended consequences of any change of ownership of any asset, and to clearly document the intent of any change. If one child is added to a bank account, should the balance of that account go to that child upon your death or do you intend that the balance be split among all your children. Future disputes can be avoided or minimized if intentions are well documented. A failure to properly document intentions often results in lengthy disputes that are expensive and permanently damage family relationships.

Probate fees are significant enough that it makes sense to at least consider options to avoid the need to obtain a grant of probate. But any changes in ownership should only be undertaken after careful consideration of the consequences of such change within the context of a person`s overall estate plan, and taking into account family dynamics that may create greater risks. All of these factors require a good conversation with your legal advisor to ensure any effort to save probate fees does not create problems that will be much more expensive and damaging to address.

*There are exceptions as each family is unique. You should seek legal advice that reflects your individual circumstances when planning for the eventual disposition of your assets upon death.

Tom Christensen, Q.C., has a general solicitor’s practice, assisting clients with business matters, wills and incapacity planning, the administration of estates, and real estate conveyancing and financing matters. He has a particular interest in assisting families with the transition of assets from one generation to the next through effective personal and business succession planning as well as resolving estate disputes outside of court.

July 12, 2019
https://www.nixonwenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Nixon-Wenger-Logo-2.png 0 0 NW Admin https://www.nixonwenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Nixon-Wenger-Logo-2.png NW Admin2019-07-12 00:00:002021-02-19 00:24:42Avoid Probate Fees

Varying the will results in an increase to 50% of the estate

Family Law, Litigation, Decisions and Settlements

A property owner died leaving a will that provided for his common law spouse to receive, from his estate, only the increase in value of his property while the two were living together.  This value amounted to a total of about 7% of the value of the man’s estate.  Andrew sued to vary the will, alleging that given the history and nature of their relationship, she was entitled to much more as the spouse of the deceased.  After a trial, the court agreed, and varied the will, increasing her share from approximately 7% to 50% of the estate.

June 27, 2019
https://www.nixonwenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Nixon-Wenger-Logo-2.png 0 0 NW Admin https://www.nixonwenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Nixon-Wenger-Logo-2.png NW Admin2019-06-27 00:00:002019-06-27 00:00:00Varying the will results in an increase to 50% of the estate

Indian Act & common law result in case being dismissed

Family Law, Litigation, Decisions and Settlements

The Deceased, a member of the Okanagan Indian Band, left a will dividing the residue of his estate between five people, some of whom were not members of the Band.  Part of the estate consisted of interests in properties within the Okanagan Indian Reserve.  The beneficiaries reached an agreement between themselves providing for the sharing of income generated from the Reserve properties.  After many years, disputes arose between the member and non-member beneficiaries, and the member beneficiaries were sued for breaching the agreement.  Andrew Powell, with Tom Christensen, argued successfully that the agreement was void and unenforceable for offending the Indian Act and the common law, resulting in the case against their clients being dismissed.
Casimir v. Parker, 2019 BCSC 939 (June 12, 2019)

June 12, 2019
https://www.nixonwenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Nixon-Wenger-Logo-2.png 0 0 NW Admin https://www.nixonwenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Nixon-Wenger-Logo-2.png NW Admin2019-06-12 00:00:002019-06-12 00:00:00Indian Act & common law result in case being dismissed

Variation of a will results in an increased inheritance

Family Law, Litigation, Decisions and Settlements

Andrew filed an action for the variation of a will on behalf of the child of a deceased: the child was one of four beneficiaries, was not in regular contact with the deceased, and had been left a sizeable inheritance already; however following examinations for discovery we were able to settle the matter and increased the inheritance to approximately 35% of the estate of the deceased.

May 2, 2019
https://www.nixonwenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Nixon-Wenger-Logo-2.png 0 0 NW Admin https://www.nixonwenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Nixon-Wenger-Logo-2.png NW Admin2019-05-02 00:00:002019-05-02 00:00:00Variation of a will results in an increased inheritance

Evidence confimed they were spouses

Family Law, Litigation, Decisions and Settlements

Andrew represented a bereaved woman whose relationship status with respect to a deceased man was challenged by the deceased’s family: they said that she was not his common law spouse, citing that she had a home in a different city, had been seeing the deceased only informally for a relatively short period of time, and that their many electronic communications indicated that the pair did not consider themselves as spouses and were not living together as spouses.  Against that, we were able to provide evidence of their relationship that indicated that the pair did consider themselves as spouses and would be found as such by law.  We were able to settle the matter on behalf of our client, receiving an award of approximately 50% of the estate.

April 30, 2019
https://www.nixonwenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Nixon-Wenger-Logo-2.png 0 0 NW Admin https://www.nixonwenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Nixon-Wenger-Logo-2.png NW Admin2019-04-30 00:00:002019-04-30 00:00:00Evidence confimed they were spouses

Full ownership of property received

Family Law, Litigation, Decisions and Settlements

Andrew represented the widow of a man who died leaving her all his property, which was a very significant amount of land.  The Deceased’s siblings sued, arguing that in fact the man had not owned the property, but rather had held in trust for them for decades, following the death of their own parents.  They argued that they had transferred their rights in the property to the deceased many years previously, and that a trust resulted from that transfer.  At trial, we argued that if there was any transfer at all, it was not one that could be impressed with a trust.  We succeeded at trial, and the widow received full ownership of the property at issue.

May 4, 2018
https://www.nixonwenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Nixon-Wenger-Logo-2.png 0 0 NW Admin https://www.nixonwenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Nixon-Wenger-Logo-2.png NW Admin2018-05-04 00:00:002018-05-04 00:00:00Full ownership of property received

Are You and Your Live-in Lover Common-Law Spouses Under the Law?

Family Law, Blog

Written by Kylie Walman

Although you may intend to be living a free-wheeling/no-strings attached existence, if you’ve lived with your romantic partner for more than two years you may be spouses under the BC Family Law Act.  And that means when you split, you could be on the hook for spousal support and dividing all of your property 50/50. 

In 2013, the Family Law Act came into force and the laws for property division that are applied to married couples when they divorce are now also applied to unmarried couples who are found to be spouses. So how do you know if you’re spouses?  In the recent decision of Weber v. Leclerc, 2015 BCCA 492, the British Columbia Court of Appeal made clear that the answer depends mostly on the nature or quality of your relationship, not on what either of you say you intended – particularly after-the-fact when you may have a lot to lose admitting that you intended to live as spouses. That was the situation in the Weber case, where Ms. Leclerc said, after-the-fact, that she never intended to be in a spousal relationship with Mr. Weber.  The BC Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal rejected her evidence finding that it wasn’t consistent with the other evidence that made clear the couple were in a “marriage-like relationship” (like the fact that they lived together for 11 years, were sexually active and monogamous, raised their separate children together, went on family trips, and had family portraits taken).  The Court of Appeal said that the question isn’t whether the couple intends to be bound by the laws applied to married couples; the question is – did the couple enter into the relationship intending to live together for an indeterminate amount of time, like a married couple?  If so, they will be spouses. 

Of course the question then is – what is living “like a married couple”?  That’s where things can become more difficult to pin down.  There is no checklist you can tick off to see if your relationship would be considered spousal – and rightfully so.  All relationships, married or not, are different and there are infinite variations of relationships that could be considered spousal.  For example, some couples maintain a sexual relationship, while others don’t; some couples mingle their finances while others keep their money and property separate; some couples holiday separately; some couples enjoy public displays of affection, while others are very private, etc.  So if this feels like laws foisted on unmarried couples, without them specifically choosing that, as the Court of Appeal pointed out, unmarried couples can choose not to have those laws apply to their relationship – by entering into a legally binding contract, or cohabitation agreement – “opting out” of certain parts of the Family Law Act.  So, if you’re approaching that two year mark living with your significant other, it may be time for a conversation and a trip to your family law lawyer.
Ms. Leclerc has since brought an application for leave to appeal the case to the Supreme Court of Canada.  A decision from the Supreme Court of Canada as to whether they will hear the case is expected to take anywhere from two to four months.

March 2, 2016
https://www.nixonwenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Nixon-Wenger-Logo-2.png 0 0 NW Admin https://www.nixonwenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Nixon-Wenger-Logo-2.png NW Admin2016-03-02 00:00:002021-02-19 00:24:45Are You and Your Live-in Lover Common-Law Spouses Under the Law?
Page 2 of 212

Pages

  • Home
  • Sponsorship Application Form
  • Our Lawyers
  • Our History
  • My account
  • Paul Nixon’s Legacy
  • Business Law
  • Employment Law
  • Family Law
  • General Litigation
  • Insurance and Health Law
  • Personal Injury
  • Real Estate
  • Wills and Estates
  • Decisions and Settlements
  • News & Articles
  • Community
  • Careers
  • Apply Online
  • Contact
  • Pay Online
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy

Categories

  • News
  • In the Community
  • Personal Injury
  • Real Estate
  • Wills and Estates
  • Family Law
  • Business Law
  • Employment Law
  • Litigation
  • Blog
  • Decisions and Settlements

Archive

  • January 2025
  • October 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • March 2024
  • December 2023
  • October 2023
  • July 2023
  • March 2023
  • January 2023
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • February 2015
  • November 2014
  • July 2014
  • November 2013
  • June 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • February 2012

#301-2706 30th Avenue
Vernon, B.C. Canada V1T 2B6

Get Directions

Hours: 8:00 am to 4:30 pm
Monday to Friday

Wheelchair Accessible

Telephone: 250-542-5353
Toll-Free: 1-800-243-5353
Fax: 250-542-7273

© Copyright - Nixon Wenger LLP
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Pay Online
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

Accept settingsHide notification onlySettings

Cookie and Privacy Settings



How we use cookies

We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.

Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.

Essential Website Cookies

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.

We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.

We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.

Google Analytics Cookies

These cookies collect information that is used either in aggregate form to help us understand how our website is being used or how effective our marketing campaigns are, or to help us customize our website and application for you in order to enhance your experience.

If you do not want that we track your visit to our site you can disable tracking in your browser here:

Other external services

We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Google reCaptcha Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

Other cookies

The following cookies are also needed - You can choose if you want to allow them:

Privacy Policy

You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.

Privacy Policy
Accept settingsHide notification only