Source: https://www.lopatkalaw.ca/lopatka-law-blog/disinheriting-family-members
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 12:33:26+00:00

Document:
There is legislation in Alberta and Court decisions which grant the Courts powers to override a testator’s freedom of a testator to change how the estate distributed from the testator’s will to provide for family members that are disinherited or do not receive a portion of the testator’s estate the Court considers is sufficient.
4. Disinheriting Adult Children Considerations.
Part 5 Family Maintenance and Support of the WSA replaces former legislation [Dependent Relief Act which formerly was the Family Relief Act] but it uses similar language and terminology which is important to note because the Courts have had the power to re-write a will for quite some time and the decisions under the former legislation are applicable to the WSA, and Alberta Courts have and continue to apply the decisions under the predecessor legislation as the “wording is substantially the same” [McKenna Estate (Re), 2015 ABQB 37 at paragraph 16].
The WSA grants the Courts the powers to change the distribution of the estate for “family members” that do not received “adequate provision” to ensure that such disinherited family member receives “proper maintenance and support” effectively “re-writing” the will respecting the scheme of distribution in the testator’s will.
It should be clear that “family members” that have been WHOLLY disinherited [excluded from the will] or PARTIALLY disinherited [not receive full amount entitled to] will be able to apply to the Court.
In many cases, there will be a wide range of options for how to distribute an estate, any of which might be considered appropriate in the circumstances, and the Court will endeavor to respect the wishes of the deceased only interfering if it is absolutely required to such that that as long as the deceased is within the range of acceptability the Court should not interfere[Tataryn v. Tatryn Estate,  S.C.J. No. 65, Gavinchuk v. Mickalyk, 2003 ABQB 849].
As a “family member” [as defined by the WSA] can apply to Court to change the estate distribution to receive for proper maintenance and support, it is important to consider whom has the right to do so.
Adult Children who is Disabled [“unable to earn a livelihood by reason of mental or physical disability”] [ss. 72(b)(iv)].
The foregoing family members will have the right to apply to the courts to exercise their powers under the WSA for adequate maintenance and support, which application should be made within 6 months of the grant of probate [ss. 89(1)], but can be made later [ss. 89(2)] and can be made by the family member or another party on their behalf [s. 90 and 92].
The factors considered by the Courts in an changing estate distribution are set out in the WSA but also the case law.
Case Law is the law which arises from the decisions of the Courts judges as cases are tried and decisions rendered.
Case law will continue to develop as cases are litigated and caselaw created.
Case law is also important because as is often the case the WSA [enacted in 2010] “codifies” or includes in legislation much of the law set out in case law. For instance, many of the considerations from the Supreme Court of Canada’s seminal case of Tataryn v. Tatryn Estate,  S.C.J. No. 65 are incorporated in the WSA, and so in that context the case law remains important because it perhaps provides additional considerations and detail respecting the considerations involved.
Tataryn v. Tatryn Estate,  S.C.J. No. 65, [Tataryn Estate] is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada is the seminal case on the family relief provisions being used to change the distribution of the estate from what is set forth in the testator’s will.
In Tataryn Estate the Court considers B.C. legislation similar to the Part 5 of the WSA, and while there are differences [see disinheriting a adult child below] the Court of Appeal in a in Koma v Tomich Estate, 2011 ABCA 186 [“Tomich Estate”] indicated that the general principles of Tataryn v Tataryn Estate applied in Alberta.
A person is under a legal duty to support his or her spouse and minor children. If this duty is not observed then it may be enforced through the courts. That a testator's estate should, therefore, be charged with a duty similar to that borne by the testator in his lifetime is not troublesome.
The “moral obligations” are “society’s reasonable expectations of what a judicious person would do in the circumstances by reference to contemporary community standards”.
In many cases, there will be a wide range of options for how to distribute an estate, any of which might be considered appropriate in the circumstances, and the Court will endeavor to respect the wishes of the deceased only interfering if it is absolutely required to such that that as long as the deceased is within the range of acceptability the Court should not interfere; [Tataryn v. Tatryn Estate,  S.C.J. No. 65, Gavinchuk v. Mickalyk, 2003 ABQB 849].
“24 In Tataryn the Supreme Court noted the competing values of testamentary autonomy and the legitimate claims and expectations of surviving family members. The Court made a number of observations on this subject. Firstly, the Court noted at p. 823 that where the estate permits, both objectives should be achieved. Secondly, the Court indicated at pp. 823-4 that there is a range of estate plans that will satisfy the legal and moral obligations of the testator, and that "provided that the testator has chosen an option within this range, the will should not be disturbed", and the "will may provide a framework for the protection of the beneficiaries". Thirdly, the Court directed that the freedom of the testator to dispose of his property should be interfered with only so far as the statute requires. Fourthly, the court has a wide ranging discretion. In this case the parties took extreme positions: the appellant asked that the whole of the undistributed estate be given to her unconditionally, whereas the respondents argued that no provision at all should be made. The court is not bound by these positions, and may formulate any creative solution that fits the circumstances of the particular estate.
In McKenna Estate (Re), 2015 ABQB 37 the Court held that s. 103 of the WSA, set above which prohibits parties from contracting out of Part 5 of the WSA, resulted in the Court disregarding a Pre-Nuptial Agreement notwithstanding it expressly provided a release and surrender of any interest in each parties’ respective estates, with the Court considering a Pre-Nuptial Agreement not to preclude any redistribution under the WSA if necessary [at paragraph 37].
In Foote Estate (Re), 2010 ABQB 197 the Court opined without deciding the point [at paragraph 50] that “poison pill” clause disinherinting a beneficiary whom challenges the will are arguably against public policy and enforceable, and was used as grounds for the estate to pay the costs of parties challenging the will and an acknowledgment that the testator considered that family members would not be content.
Courts have often held, particularly noteworthy in the context of blended families, that in certain circumstances the claim of certain family members may be subject to a “limiting rule” that prevents estate building with claimants attempting to amass an estate for the claimants beneficiaries under the guise of a claim for proper maintenance and support under Part 5 of the WSA for maintenance and support such that the Court should only be providing for proper maintenance and support of the claiming family member not estate building [Birkenbach Estate (Re), 2015 ABQB 3 at paragraph 22, and Re Eisert-Graydon, 2003 ABQB 40].
In Stayko v. Stayko  A.J. No. 1404 (Q.B.) wherein a long estranged wife [separated for 50 years] made an application with the Court in Stayko finding that there was neither a legal obligation to support if the deceased were alive nor any moral obligation as there was no real existing connection with deceased and perhaps importantly no obvious need for support.
In Karim v Hirji Estate, 2017 ABQB 526 at paragraph 19 the Court notes that the interests of a parent and those of a child are not the same as future uncertainty renders the interests of the mother necessarily different from those of her son which argument was raised in the context of the mother [and child] seeking to have a gift to the deceased’s parents to be paid to the deceased’s [and mother’s] son.
Any determination as to the future anticipated needs of a child of tender age would be speculative at best, and so for a minor child of tender age that is entitled to adequate maintenance and support from the estate and to the extent that guesswork may be required, the Court should guess at the higher end of the appropriate range. Or, in the words of Wilson J. in Rudd-Birkenbach v Birkenbach Estate, 2015 ABQB 3 (CanLII) at para 127, 5 ETR (4th) 260, if the Court is to err in quantum, it should err “on the side of awarding more rather than less”.
It is clear from the foregoing that WSA disabled adult child that is unable to earn a livelihood due to mental or physical disability may have rights to apply for adequate maintenance and support from an estate if it is not provided for in a will so disinheriting a disabled adult child may result in the “re-writing” of your will.
So, other than dependent full time student between the ages of 18 to 22, a non-disabled adult child is not considered a “family member”.
As a disabled adult child is expressly entitled to apply for family maintenance and support, whether a disinherited adult child is disabled [unable to earn a livelihood due to mental or physical disability] will often determine whether such adult child is entitled to make an application.
Circumstances may change from time to time as an adult child may become disabled.
and the Court in Birkenbach found the disinherited adult on to be “disabled” and awarded maintenance and support a $500,000 settlement [for the university years up to 22 - notwithstanding the son didn’t go to school] plus $ 3million dollars [from a $42 million dollar estate] to see him through to the age of 65 years and permit him the opportunity to pursue education as notwithstanding his learning disability he was an intelligent individual.
There are numerous cases where applications were made by non-disabled adult children seeking family maintenance and support, both before and after Tataryn Estate.
Reference is made to Tataryn Estate because it is from the Supreme Court of Canada [binding upon all Courts in Canada] and the testator expressly disinherited a non-disabled adult son for reasons set forth in his will [long term estrangement], with the Court examining B.C. Legislation and ultimately awarding the able-bodied adult son applicant 1/3rd beneficiary interest of the estate, expressly contrary to the will.
In Tomich Estate the Alberta Court of Appeal cautioned that differences in the B.C. legislation and Alberta legislation “restrains the ability of Alberta Courts to grant relief” [at paragraph 17].
The Court in Re Birkenbach 2015 ABQB 3 considered whether Tataryn Estate does not apply to permit a non-disabled adult child to apply for family maintenance and support, with the Court decided that a non-disabled child is not entitled to make such an application and further notes that there are several decisions in Alberta which already have decided [Re Gray Estate, Re Willan Estate, Siegel v Siegel Estate].
As noted in Re Birkenbach, numerous applications by non-disabled adult children have been made [Re Gray Estate, Re Willan Estate, Siegel v Siegel Estate] so notwithstanding the case law in the matter this issue appears to be repeatedly raised. So, it should be noted that Re Birkenbach is a decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench decision so persuasive but not binding case law upon other Justices of the Court of Queen’s Bench.
These Laws effect every person domiciled and/or with Property in Alberta.
Please contact us to see if we can be of assistance to you in preparing your estate plan or in navigating your rights and responsibilities as a beneficiary, personal representative [executor or executrix] or potential claim as a dependent family member against an estate.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.