VANCOUVER – The British Columbia Court of Appeal has affirmed a lower court’s decision to remove a man as the executor of his grandmother’s will, concluding a prolonged family dispute marked by hostility, communication breakdowns, and significant delays in the administration of the estate1. The court dismissed the appeal of Manjinder Singh Mahal, who argued the judge who removed him lacked the proper jurisdiction and made errors in assessing the evidence against him. The ruling solidifies the position of his sister, Baljit Kaur Mahal, as the new executor of their grandmother’s estate.
To read our article about the original case from which this appeal arises, click here.
The legal conflict is rooted in the estate of Chanan Kaur Mahal, who passed away on June 29, 2019. In her will, she appointed her grandson, Manjinder, as the sole executor and trustee. The primary beneficiaries were her three grandchildren: Manjinder, Baljit, and their sister, Sarvjit Mahal. Following Sarvjit’s subsequent death without a will, her share of the inheritance passed to her mother, Gurjinder Kaur Mahal, making the final beneficiaries Manjinder, Baljit, and Gurjinder.
The central asset of the estate is a 50 percent interest in a residential property located at 785 South East Marine Drive in Vancouver. Chanan Mahal had owned this interest as a tenant in common, with the other 50 percent owned by Manjinder himself, a fact that would later become a focal point of the dispute. According to the will, Chanan’s half of the Vancouver property was to be divided equally between Baljit and Sarvjit, meaning their mother Gurjinder would inherit Sarvjit’s portion. The will also bequeathed properties in India to Manjinder and stipulated that the residue of the estate, including a collection of gold jewelry, be divided equally among all three grandchildren.
Manjinder applied for probate, the legal process of validating a will, in June 2021. Even before probate was granted, tensions began to surface. In July and again in December of 2021, Baljit made inquiries about the management of the Vancouver property, specifically requesting information on revenues and expenses, including any rental income being generated. Manjinder did not provide her with the requested details. Probate was officially granted on December 13, 2021, legally empowering Manjinder to administer the estate according to the will’s terms.
Over a year later, with little progress made, Baljit took legal action. In February 2023, she filed a petition in the Supreme Court of British Columbia seeking to have her brother removed as executor. She asked the court to appoint her as the substitute trustee and to have all estate assets vested in her name to complete the administration. By the time the petition was heard over three days in April and July of 2024, the estate remained unsettled, nearly five years after Chanan Mahal’s passing.
On October 22, 2024, the chambers judge of the Supreme Court granted Baljit’s petition. The judge found that the relationship between the siblings had deteriorated completely, making cooperation impossible. The decision noted that Manjinder had not been transparent with Baljit, had acted with hostility towards her, and that this behaviour was actively interfering with the proper administration of the estate. The judge also found that the years of inaction amounted to unreasonable delay. Furthermore, the judge pointed to a potential conflict of interest, observing that Manjinder could have personally benefitted from the delay in finalizing the estate, particularly concerning his co-ownership and management of the Vancouver property. Based on these findings, the judge concluded that it was in the best interest of the beneficiaries to remove Manjinder from his role.
Manjinder appealed this decision, raising several legal and factual arguments. His primary legal argument centered on the court’s jurisdiction. He contended that under Section 30 of the provincial Trustee Act, an executor appointed by a court can only be removed on an application by a beneficiary if a majority of the other beneficiaries consent. Since his mother, Gurjinder, had not participated in the proceedings or given her consent, he argued the majority requirement was not met and the court therefore had no authority to remove him. He asserted that other potential sources of authority, such as Section 31 of the Act or the court’s inherent jurisdiction, did not apply in this situation.
He also argued the judge made a legal error regarding the burden of proof, claiming that Baljit should have been required to prove she was acting in good faith, which he alleged she was not. Finally, he claimed the chambers judge made a “palpable and overriding error” in her factual assessment, arguing that any delay or hostility did not meet the high threshold required to justify the drastic step of removing an executor chosen by the testator.
The Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Iyer, rejected all of Manjinder’s arguments. Addressing the central jurisdictional question, the court found that his interpretation of the Trustee Act was incorrect. Justice Iyer explained that Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, along with the court’s inherent jurisdiction, provide overlapping sources of authority for removing a trustee. The inability to meet the majority consent requirement of Section 30 does not prevent a court from exercising its power under Section 31 or its inherent duty to oversee the administration of trusts and protect the welfare of beneficiaries. The court confirmed that the chambers judge correctly identified these multiple sources of authority for her order.
The appellate court also dismissed the argument concerning good faith. Justice Iyer noted that while a requirement to prove good faith exists in some specific legal actions under the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, it does not apply to a general application to remove an executor. The court found no legal basis for Manjinder’s assertion that Baljit was required to prove her good faith in this context.
Finally, the Court of Appeal addressed the claim of factual error. It reiterated the legal principle that an appellate court will not interfere with a lower court’s factual findings unless there is an obvious error that would change the outcome of the case. The court held that the chambers judge’s findings were well supported by the evidence presented, which included cross examinations on affidavits. The evidence of a complete breakdown in the relationship, Manjinder’s hostility, the unreasonable delay, and the potential for a conflict of interest were all factors the judge was entitled to weigh. The appeal court concluded that Manjinder’s argument amounted to a request to reweigh the evidence, which is not the function of an appeal.
The appeal was dismissed, and Baljit was awarded her legal costs against Manjinder on the ordinary scale. The decision confirms her appointment as the new executor, tasking her with finalizing an estate that has been stalled for more than half a decade.
Read more about estate law cases here.
One thought on “B.C. Appeal Court upholds brother’s removal as executor in family estate battle over delays and hostility”
Comments are closed.