Background
Gurmej Singh Dhillon’s 2014 will made a bequest to Asha Dhillon and divided the estate’s residue equally among his four younger children, excluding his four older children. After his death in 2022, the older children challenged the will on grounds including lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence. They also advanced allegations concerning elder abuse, misappropriation of funds, and the paternity of the younger children.
The older children ultimately withdrew their opposition shortly before a scheduled modified trial, and the Supreme Court of British Columbia pronounced the will proven in solemn form. The chambers judge later ordered them to pay the beneficiary children’s and estate administrator’s costs, assessed as special costs, finding that they had pursued serious, unsupported allegations despite contrary evidence. The older children sought leave to appeal that costs order and a stay pending appeal.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Donegan, sitting in chambers, dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The proposed appeal raised no question of principle extending beyond the case or significant to legal practice. The special costs decision was a fact-specific exercise of discretion under settled law, and it was open to the chambers judge to find the older children’s conduct reprehensible and deserving of rebuke.
The Court also rejected the contention that three applicants were denied procedural fairness because their counsel allegedly failed to inform them of the costs application. They had been properly served under the applicable rules, and any failure of communication was an issue between them and their counsel, not an error by the judge. They could raise the matter with counsel or seek reconsideration in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Because leave to appeal was refused, the requested stay was also dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- Leave to appeal a discretionary costs award requires more than disagreement with the result; the proposed appeal must meet a stringent merits threshold and ordinarily raise a broader question of principle.
- Special costs may be justified when litigants maintain serious, meritless allegations without evidentiary support and in the face of compelling contrary evidence.
- A lawyer’s alleged failure to notify clients of a properly served hearing does not, without an error by the court, establish procedural unfairness warranting appellate intervention.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that will challenges do not attract special costs merely because they fail, but litigants may face such costs when their manner of conducting the case is found reprehensible. It also underscores the substantial appellate deference given to fact-specific costs awards and identifies reconsideration in the court below—not an appeal—as a potential avenue when the complaint concerns communication between clients and their lawyer.