A British Columbia Supreme Court justice has ordered the removal of a man as the executor and trustee of his grandmother’s will, citing an unreasonable five-year delay in administering the estate, a failure to provide basic financial information, and overt hostility directed at his sister, who is a fellow beneficiary1. The decision, delivered on October 22, 2024, by Justice A. Walkem in Chilliwack, transfers control of the estate from Manjinder Singh Mahal to his sister, Baljit Kaur Mahal.
The legal dispute stemmed from the estate of Chanan Kaur Mahal, who passed away on June 29, 2019. Her will named her three grandchildren, Manjinder, Baljit, and their sister Sarvjit Mahal, as the primary beneficiaries. Sarvjit had predeceased her grandmother, and under the terms of the will, her share of the estate passed to her own estate, making the siblings’ mother, Gurjinder Kaur Mahal, a beneficiary in the proceedings. Manjinder was appointed as the sole executor and trustee to manage the distribution of their grandmother’s assets, with Baljit and Sarvjit named as alternates.
Despite Manjinder being granted probate on December 13, 2021, the estate remained largely unsettled more than two and a half years later, and over five years after Chanan Mahal’s death. This prompted Baljit to file a petition seeking to have her brother removed from his role. She argued that he had failed in his duties by refusing to provide information about the estate’s administration, failing to produce an accounting of its assets, and behaving with hostility towards her when she made inquiries.
The estate consisted of three main components. The first was property and land in India, which were willed directly to Manjinder. The second was the residue of the estate, which included a collection of gold jewelry and was to be divided equally among the three grandchildren’s shares. The third, and most contentious, asset was a 50 percent interest Chanan Mahal held as a tenant-in-common in a residential property located at 785 South East Marine Drive in Vancouver. Manjinder personally owned the other 50 percent of this property. According to the will, Chanan’s half-share of the Vancouver property was to be given to Baljit and Sarvjit in equal shares, meaning Baljit and her mother Gurjinder were the beneficiaries of that specific asset.
In her application, Baljit claimed that Manjinder had not provided any information regarding the management of the Vancouver property, including any rental income it may have generated. She presented evidence of a 2021 real estate listing that suggested the property was being rented for $3,000 per month. Baljit argued that she and her mother had no knowledge of how much rent had been collected or how those funds were being used. Manjinder countered that he was paying for the property’s upkeep but provided no formal accounting to support this. He had expressed a desire to purchase his sister and mother’s interest in the property but was also willing to sell it.
The conflict between the siblings was not limited to the real estate. A dispute also arose over a collection of gold jewelry that their grandmother had kept in a CIBC safety deposit box, which she held jointly with Manjinder. Shortly after Chanan’s death, Manjinder and Baljit accessed the box together. However, their accounts of what happened next diverged significantly. Manjinder claimed Baljit took her share of the jewelry at that time. Baljit insisted she only took a necklace and two rings to wear to the funeral and that a significant amount of jewelry remained unaccounted for. The court also heard about a VanCity bank account worth approximately $60,000, which Baljit believed was part of the estate. Manjinder clarified that the account was held jointly between himself and their grandmother, and therefore, it passed directly to him outside of the will, a point the court appeared to accept.
The breakdown in the siblings’ relationship was starkly illustrated by text messages Manjinder sent to Baljit when she requested information about the estate. In response to her inquiries, Manjinder wrote, “Go fuck yourself/Crazy psycho,” and, “Fuck off/I don’t need to tell you anything/I’m the Executor/Call a lawyer and simply ask …”. In July 2021, he told her to “never speak to me again” and to communicate only through lawyers. Baljit’s counsel subsequently sent letters in July and December of 2021 requesting details about the Vancouver property’s revenue and expenses, as well as the status of the gold jewelry and bank accounts, but the issues remained unresolved.
In his defense, Manjinder argued that the delays were justified because matters first had to be settled in India, a process he claimed was complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Justice Walkem noted in her reasons that it was not clear why the Vancouver property could not have been addressed separately or sooner. Manjinder’s lawyer also argued that Baljit was acting in bad faith by seeking the “nuclear option” of his removal instead of first pursuing less drastic legal measures, such as an application for a formal accounting.
Justice Walkem rejected this argument, stating that nothing in the law required a beneficiary to exhaust other options before seeking to remove an executor who was failing in their duties. The central legal test for removing an executor, the judge explained, is the welfare of the beneficiaries. A court can intervene if an executor’s conduct endangers the trust property or demonstrates a want of honesty, a lack of capacity, or a want of reasonable fidelity.
In her analysis, Justice Walkem found that Manjinder’s conduct met the threshold for removal. She concluded that there had been an unreasonable delay in finalizing what was, in respect to the Vancouver property, a very simple estate. The judge found that Manjinder’s overt hostility toward Baljit interfered with the proper administration of the estate and that his refusal to provide information was a serious breach of his duties. She wrote, “When Baljit requested information about the administration of the estate, she was met with hostility.” The judge also noted the potential conflict of interest arising from Manjinder’s co-ownership of the Vancouver property, suggesting he could be benefiting from the delay while the estate languished.
“The delay, combined with overt hostility, supports removal,” Justice Walkem wrote. “Baljit can reasonably fear that Manjinder is not acting with fidelity or is acting with hostility. Manjinder’s removal is necessary for the interests of the beneficiaries to be protected.”
The court ordered Manjinder removed as both executor and trustee. In his place, Justice Walkem appointed Baljit, noting that her grandmother had already demonstrated her trust by naming Baljit as a joint alternate executor in the will. The judge expressed confidence that appointing Baljit would solve the problem rather than simply transferring it, as the primary outstanding issue was the Vancouver property willed to Baljit and her mother.
Finally, in a move that underscored the court’s view of Manjinder’s conduct, Justice Walkem ordered that he personally pay Baljit’s legal costs for the application. Typically, such costs might be paid from the estate itself, but the judge found that the standard rule should apply, as the legal action was not necessitated by any ambiguity in the will but by Manjinder’s own actions as executor.
Read more about estate law cases here.
Edit: This case was appealed to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia. To read about the results of the appeal, click here.
One thought on “Brother removed as executor after hostile texts and years of delay in grandmother’s estate”
Comments are closed.