Background
Harjit Singh Gill challenged arrangements through which his father, Swinder Singh Gill, transferred assets to his grandchildren and excluded Harjit from his estate. Swinder opened a joint bank account with his three grandchildren in 2013, transferred his Delta home to two of them as joint tenants in 2019, and executed a 2020 will leaving the account and his remaining estate to the grandchildren. The will stated that Harjit received nothing because of his longstanding estrangement from Swinder.
Harjit sought to undo the transfers, set aside or vary Swinder’s wills, remove Rani Kulvinder Gill as executor, and recover damages from the lawyer who prepared the wills and property-transfer documents. Following a summary trial, the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the claims, upheld the 2020 will and transfers, and cancelled the certificate of pending litigation registered against the home. Harjit appealed, alleging incapacity, undue influence, fraud, solicitor negligence, and procedural unfairness.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in its entirety. It held that Harjit had not demonstrated any palpable and overriding error in the findings that Swinder had capacity, intended the transfers and testamentary dispositions, and was not subjected to undue influence. The evidence included Swinder’s consistent expressions of intent, observations from family and friends, and the lawyer’s meetings with Swinder alone and contemporaneous assessment of his capacity.
The Court also held that proceeding by summary trial was neither unfair nor plainly wrong. Harjit had ample time to prepare, received the medical records electronically, and did not timely arrange to inspect the physical copies or conduct discoveries. A medical-record entry referring to delirium during Swinder’s 2019 hospitalization was inadmissible as fresh evidence and, in any event, could not reasonably have affected the result given the evidence that he later recovered.
The Court rejected the remaining challenges, including the negligence claim against Swinder’s lawyer. The lawyer’s duty was to carry out Swinder’s instructions, not to advance the interests of a son whom Swinder intentionally excluded. The Court also upheld cancellation of the certificate of pending litigation and left the trial costs orders undisturbed.
Key Takeaways
- Findings about testamentary capacity, intention, and undue influence are factual and attract appellate deference absent palpable and overriding error.
- A party opposing summary trial must use available time and disclosure opportunities; failing to review produced records or pursue discovery does not itself make the proceeding unfair.
- A drafting lawyer does not owe a duty to protect the interests of a person whom a competent client deliberately chose not to benefit.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidentiary importance of consistent estate-planning intentions, independent instructions, and contemporaneous capacity notes. Even after serious illness, a transfer or will may stand where the evidence establishes that the person recovered, understood the transaction, and acted free of undue influence.
It also reinforces that summary trial can resolve fact-intensive estate disputes when the affidavit and documentary record permits a just determination, and that speculative allegations will not necessarily require a conventional trial or cross-examination.