Firm News & Updates

Modernizing Court Procedures in BC

The courts in BC have introduced several measures to make litigation more efficient and accessible:

• Remote and Digital Processes: The BC Supreme Court permanently updated its rules to allow affidavits (sworn statements) to be taken remotely via video conference ( CBA British Columbia - 2024 ). Previously, remote witnessing of affidavits was permitted only under COVID-19 safety measures; now it’s a standard option. This means you can swear court documents before a commissioner or lawyer online, without needing to attend in person – a convenient change for those in remote areas or with mobility concerns.

• Online Scheduling: As of late 2024, the Supreme Court expanded its Court Online Booking System (COBS) to include trial scheduling ( Supreme Court ). Parties and lawyers can now book civil and family trial dates through an online portal, building on a system first introduced for case conferences in 2020. This online scheduling reduces delays and phone tag with court registries, making it easier to secure court dates.

• Electronic Filing and Hearings: Electronic court filing has become standard, and many routine hearings (e.g. case conferences and some short motions) continue to be held by video or telephone. What started as a pandemic necessity is now part of normal practice. Litigants benefit from lower travel costs and the ability to attend brief court appearances remotely. There is ongoing discussion about expanding virtual hearings for certain Chambers matters (short applications), as the bar has noted the efficiency of online attendance.

• Addressing Backlogs: To tackle delays, the provincial government has been increasing judicial resources. In September 2024, two new judges were appointed to the BC Provincial Court to “support consistent and timely access to justice” ( CBA British Columbia - 2024 ). More judges and court staff mean civil cases – from small claims to supreme court actions – can be heard sooner, helping clear the backlog that built up during the pandemic. Courts are also publishing annual reports with statistics and improvements, underscoring transparency in how they are managing caseloads.

Small Claims and Online Dispute Resolution

Significant reforms to how smaller civil disputes are resolved have taken effect, emphasizing online resolution and tribunal processes:

• Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) for Minor Claims: British Columbia has moved many small claims online. The Civil Resolution Tribunal now handles most claims up to $5,000 in value, using a digital platform (Small claims court - procedures and fees - Province of British Columbia). Using the CRT is mandatory for most disputes under this limit, covering issues like debt claims, personal property disputes, and minor car accident claims. The CRT process is designed to be user-friendly and cost-effective – you can file a claim, submit evidence, and even attend mediation or get a decision, all via the internet. This frees up the courts and provides a quicker route for minor cases.

• Small Claims Court Jurisdiction: Traditional Small Claims Court (part of the BC Provincial Court) continues to hear cases between $5,001 and $35,000 (Small claims court - procedures and fees - Province of British Columbia). The monetary ceiling was raised to $35,000 a few years ago, and it remains at that level in 2024. Notably, simplified trial procedures have been implemented at certain court locations (Robson Square in Vancouver and Richmond) for claims up to $10,000 (Small claims court - procedures and fees - Province of British Columbia). These pilot procedures streamline trials by using simpler rules of evidence and time limits, helping self-represented parties resolve disputes faster. If you have a claim in this range, the court may direct it into a simplified trial track for an expedited hearing.

• Auto Accident Claims Changes: The province’s approach to motor vehicle injury claims has dramatically changed. As part of the 2021 shift to a “no-fault” insurance model, the CRT was given exclusive authority to decide if an injury from a motor vehicle accident is a “minor injury” and to adjudicate injury claims up to $50,000 (Update on the CRT’s Jurisdiction over Motor Vehicle Injury Disputes - BC Civil Resolution Tribunal). In 2022, the BC Court of Appeal upheld this regime (and the Supreme Court of Canada declined to interfere), so as of 2024 these rules firmly remain in place (Update on the CRT’s Jurisdiction over Motor Vehicle Injury Disputes - BC Civil Resolution Tribunal). Practical impact: If you’re injured in a car accident in BC after April 1, 2019 and your injuries are within the defined “minor” category or your claim is under $50k, you generally cannot sue in the BC Supreme Court. Instead, you must go through the CRT for compensation, and the court will dismiss lawsuits that fall under the tribunal’s jurisdiction. Only in exceptional cases (where it’s not in the interests of justice for the CRT to handle it) would a court allow a civil lawsuit to proceed. This change has reduced the number of car accident lawsuits and aims to lower insurance costs, but it also means individuals give up the right to a traditional court process for most auto injury disputes.

• No More Automatic Appeals from CRT Decisions: An important change for those using the CRT is the removal of the “Notice of Objection” process as of July 1, 2022 (Changes to the Notice of Objection Process - BC Civil Resolution Tribunal). Previously, if you disagreed with a CRT small claims decision (for claims under $5,000), you could file a notice of objection within 28 days and start fresh in Small Claims Court (essentially an automatic appeal) (Changes to the Notice of Objection Process - BC Civil Resolution Tribunal). Now, CRT decisions in small claims matters are final and binding, just like a court judgment, unless you pursue a judicial review in the BC Supreme Court (Changes to the Notice of Objection Process - BC Civil Resolution Tribunal). A judicial review is not a re-trial but a check for jurisdictional errors or unfairness. This means participants must put their best case forward in the CRT process itself – you generally get no “second chance” trial. The elimination of easy appeals makes the system more efficient, but also places greater importance on the tribunal’s decision-making. If you receive a CRT decision you believe is flawed, you should seek legal advice promptly about a possible judicial review, as strict time limits apply.

Notable Court Decisions in 2024-2025

BC courts have delivered several important judgments in the past year that clarify the law and have real-world implications for civil litigants. Below are some highlights:

• Indigenous Rights and Resource Projects: In Thomas v. Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. (2024 BCCA 62), a landmark case, the BC Court of Appeal addressed the conflict between industrial development and Aboriginal rights. The Court confirmed that an Indigenous group’s established Aboriginal fishing rights can ground a private law claim (in this case, nuisance) against a company operating a dam (BC Court of Appeal Confirms the Defence of Statutory Authority Applies where Aboriginal Fishing Rights are Engaged - Lexology). However, the Court upheld the defence of statutory authority – meaning that because the dam’s operations were authorized by statute, the company (Rio Tinto) was not liable for the harm to the fishing rights. Importantly, the judges varied the lower court’s declaration to explicitly state that the provincial and federal governments have a fiduciary duty to protect the First Nations’ fishing rights through proper river management (BC Court of Appeal Confirms the Defence of Statutory Authority Applies where Aboriginal Fishing Rights are Engaged - Lexology). Practical takeaway: Large projects authorized by government can still infringe Indigenous rights, but the onus is on the Crown to safeguard those rights. For communities and businesses, this decision clarifies who may be held accountable when public approvals and private operations collide with Aboriginal rights – governments might face future litigation if they fail to uphold their duties, even if the private operator is spared from liability.

• Defamation in the Digital Age: Courts in BC are signaling zero tolerance for malicious defamation, whether in business or politics. In 2024, the Court of Appeal upheld a record-setting defamation award of $1.5 million against a company and its executives who ran a calculated online smear campaign against a competitor (B.C. Court of Appeal upholds $1.5 million defamation award against traffic control firm and its executives | HR Law Canada). The defendants in that case (involving two traffic control firms) had orchestrated false allegations of criminal conduct against their rival, and the hefty damages affirmed on appeal underscore the serious consequences of online libel. Similarly, in early 2025, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by a former school board trustee who was found liable for defaming a fellow trustee by referring to her as “that strip-tease artist” during an election campaign (BC court of appeal finds “ideological battle” no justification for defamation of school trustee - Dentons Commercial Litigation Blog). The court held that this insult went beyond fair commentary and was a “demeaning denigration” of the plaintiff’s reputation (BC court of appeal finds “ideological battle” no justification for defamation of school trustee - Dentons Commercial Litigation Blog). Practical takeaways: Freedom of speech has limits – whether you’re a business owner posting about a competitor or a citizen opining about a public figure, false and derogatory statements can lead to substantial legal liability. The high damages and firm language from the courts signal that cyber libel and character attacks will be taken very seriously in BC. Individuals and businesses should think twice before publishing accusations on social media or other platforms; if statements can’t be proven true or defensible as fair comment, don’t post them.

• Employment Contracts – Limiting Severance: A notable employment law decision from the BC Court of Appeal in July 2024 provided clarity on termination clauses in employment contracts. The court upheld the enforceability of a clause that expressly incorporated the statutory minimum notice and severance provisions of the Canada Labour Code (British Columbia, Canada Court of Appeal Affirms Enforceability of Termination Clause That Incorporated by Reference Notice and Severance Provisions of Canada Labour Code | Littler). In plain terms, the employer’s contract limited the employee’s dismissal package to the amount required by law (which is often much less generous than what common law would provide as “reasonable notice”). The Court found that the clause was drafted clearly enough to rebut the presumption that an employee is entitled to common law notice (British Columbia, Canada Court of Appeal Affirms Enforceability of Termination Clause That Incorporated by Reference Notice and Severance Provisions of Canada Labour Code | Littler). What this means: Employers have a green light – if they draft termination clauses with careful, unambiguous reference to employment standards legislation, those clauses can be upheld, preventing employees from later claiming larger common-law notice awards. Employees, on the other hand, should be aware that signing a contract with such a clause likely restricts their severance to the minimums in employment standards law. It’s more important than ever for workers to understand their contracts at the start of employment (or seek legal advice), and for employers to review their template contracts to ensure termination language is clear and compliant.

• Limitation Periods and Filing Deadlines: The courts continue to strictly enforce limitation periods in civil claims. In Delfs v. Stricker (2024 BCCA 35), the Court of Appeal clarified when the clock starts running for third-party claims (claims for contribution and indemnity against another party). The Court disagreed with a previous interpretation and held that a defendant “discovers” a third-party claim as soon as they are served with a pleading that, if proven, could make them pay more than their fair share of damages (Discovering Limitations: BCCA Offers Clarity on when the Clock Starts Running, Arman Brar). This means defendants cannot wait for a plaintiff to formally point fingers at others before bringing in additional parties – once you know another party might be responsible, the two-year limitation to initiate a third-party claim begins. More broadly, BC’s Limitation Act imposes a general two-year limitation period for most civil actions (from the date you discovered the claim) and a 15-year ultimate limitation long-stop (Statute of Limitations in BC: Changes and How to Navigate the Act - Spectrum Family Law). Exceptions exist (for example, no limitation for certain assault/abuse claims), but by and large, if you delay past two years, you lose the right to sue. Practical advice: Do not sit on your rights. If you’re involved in a dispute – whether it’s a contract issue, an injury, or any loss – consult a lawyer early to determine the applicable limitation deadline. The recent case law shows that even nuanced points (like adding third parties to a lawsuit) are subject to strict timing rules. Courts have little sympathy for those who miss deadlines, even for understandable reasons, so timely action is crucial to preserve your claims.

Access to Justice and Legal Service Innovations

Beyond courts and cases, British Columbia has been pursuing initiatives to improve access to justice:

• Legal Professions Reform: A significant legislative change came in 2024 with the introduction of the Legal Professions Act (LPA). This new law, which received Royal Assent in May 2024, will create a single regulator for all legal professionals and pave the way for a new class of legal service providers (Legal Professions Regulatory Reform - govTogetherBC). Under the LPA, lawyers, notaries public, and licensed paralegals will all be regulated by one body, Legal Professions BC, rather than separate organizations. The reform’s goal is to expand affordable legal services – for example, in the near future British Columbians may have the option to hire a “regulated paralegal” for certain simpler legal matters at lower cost than a lawyer (Legal Professions Regulatory Reform - govTogetherBC). This could include assistance with small claims, straightforward civil disputes, or tribunal hearings. For the public, the LPA should mean more choice and competition in the legal marketplace, potentially reducing costs and improving access. The law is being implemented gradually (a transitional board and framework are underway (Legal Professions Regulatory Reform - govTogetherBC)), so these changes will roll out over the next couple of years. Law firms are preparing for an adjusted landscape where multidisciplinary teams of lawyers and paralegals can serve clients more flexibly.

• Public Information and Self-Help: There’s a continued emphasis on making the justice system navigable for self-represented litigants. BC’s Justice Ministry and various organizations have expanded online resources like the Supreme Court BC and Court of Appeal BC guide websites, Clicklaw, and the People’s Law School materials. These offer free guides on court procedures, forms, and legal terminology in plain language. While not a change in law, it’s a noteworthy development that in 2024 the People’s Law School and other non-profits ramped up efforts to educate the public about civil law rights and process (for instance, publishing easy-to-understand articles on the Limitation Act changes (Statute of Limitations in BC: Changes and How to Navigate the Act - Spectrum Family Law) (Statute of Limitations in BC: Changes and How to Navigate the Act - Spectrum Family Law)). Access to justice isn’t only about new laws – it’s also about awareness. Individuals and small businesses are encouraged to make use of these resources to better understand the litigation process, prepare for court, or explore alternatives like mediation.

• Continuing Focus on Efficiency: The overarching theme of recent reforms is efficiency without sacrificing fairness. Courts and tribunals are leveraging technology (e-filing, online dispute resolution) and new policies (streamlined trials, flexible commissioning of documents) to lower the cost and time investment required in civil disputes. The legal community, through bodies like the Canadian Bar Association BC branch, is closely involved – providing feedback on what works and what doesn’t. Expect further tweaks: for example, we may see more specialized courts or dockets for certain case types, expanded use of judicial mediation, or rule changes to simplify evidence and disclosure in smaller cases. All these are aimed at making the civil justice system more user-friendly for ordinary citizens.

Conclusion:
For anyone involved in a civil dispute in British Columbia – whether you’re suing over a contract, dealing with a property issue, or seeking damages for an injury – the landscape in 2024-2025 offers both new opportunities and cautions. On one hand, resolving claims has become more accessible: small claims can be handled online, procedural hurdles are easing, and alternative service providers will soon be available to assist. On the other hand, the importance of acting promptly and responsibly has only been reinforced: limitation periods are strict, and courts are ready to impose stiff penalties for abuses like defamation or needless delays. The takeaway is clear: stay informed about these developments, and when in doubt, seek professional legal advice early. With the civil justice system in BC evolving, a knowledgeable guide – be it a lawyer or a licensed paralegal in the future – can help you navigate the process and protect your rights under the new rules. By understanding the recent changes outlined above, individuals and businesses can better position themselves in any legal dispute, leading to more efficient and fair outcomes. (Statute of Limitations in BC: Changes and How to Navigate the Act - Spectrum Family Law) (Legal Professions Regulatory Reform - govTogetherBC)

Housing Supply and Zoning Reforms in B.C.

In late 2023, the B.C. government enacted several pieces of housing legislation representing the most significant policy changes to housing in decades (QUICKSCRIBE REPORTER). One major reform is a requirement that municipalities allow “small-scale, multi-unit housing” on traditional single-family lots by June 30, 2024 ( Dentons - Restrictive covenants: A barrier to housing developments in British Columbia ). In practical terms, local governments had to update zoning bylaws to permit duplexes, laneway houses, secondary suites and other ground-oriented multi-unit homes in neighborhoods previously limited to one house per lot. The goal is to gently densify communities and increase housing supply amid a housing affordability crisis. Likewise, transit-oriented development rules now mandate higher minimum density around major transit hubs such as SkyTrain stations and bus loops (2024 B.C. Budget: More Changes to B.C.’s Real Estate Landscape - Lexology), aiming to create more homes near public transportation corridors.

However, private restrictive covenants on land titles are emerging as a complicating factor. Many older properties carry covenants that limit use to a single dwelling or impose other density restrictions. The government’s current position is that these private covenants are not automatically overridden by the new zoning laws ( Dentons - Restrictive covenants: A barrier to housing developments in British Columbia ). This means if a title has a covenant prohibiting multi-unit use, it could still block a duplex or laneway house even though zoning now allows it. Resolving such conflicts may require negotiation or legal action by developers and owners unless future policy addresses these covenants. From a homeowner’s perspective, the zoning reforms could present new opportunities (for example, the ability to add a rental suite or garden cottage for extra income) but also potential neighborhood changes as higher-density projects become permissible next door. Overall, these B.C. housing reforms are aimed at removing barriers to development and enabling a broader range of housing types – an important shift for builders and communities looking to increase housing options.

(What this means for you: Homeowners may be able to build additional units on their properties or see more multi-unit projects in their neighborhoods. Developers have new opportunities to create duplexes and small multiplexes without lengthy rezoning, though they must still be mindful of any restrictive covenants. Residents can expect gradual increases in neighborhood density, especially around transit, as the province pushes for more housing.)

Short-Term Rental Regulations Overhauled

Short-term rental platforms like Airbnb and Vrbo have come under new provincial regulation in B.C. The Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act was passed in 2023 (as part of Bill 22) with rules rolling out through 2024 and 2025 (2024 B.C. Budget: More Changes to B.C.’s Real Estate Landscape - Lexology). A key change is a strict principal residence requirement: as of late 2023, hosts can only offer short-term rentals in their primary home (plus one secondary suite or accessory dwelling on the same property) (B.C.'s short-term rental legislation - Province of British Columbia). In other words, operating a dedicated Airbnb in an investment property or second home is no longer legal in most areas – the home generally must be where the host lives most of the year. This change is intended to return investor-owned short-term rentals to the long-term housing market, making more homes available for local renters and residents.

Enforcement tools have also been significantly strengthened. Previously, some operators were “grandfathered” by legal non-conforming use (meaning they could continue renting short-term if they started before local bans existed), but the new law removed that protection for short-term rentals (B.C.'s short-term rental legislation - Province of British Columbia). Additionally, the province gave local governments more muscle to enforce their bylaws. For example, B.C. hiked the maximum fine for violating a municipal bylaw on short-term rentals from $1,000 to $3,000 per day (and up to $50,000 for more serious prosecution cases) (B.C.'s short-term rental legislation - Province of British Columbia). Online platforms are now held accountable as well – hosts must display a valid business license number on their listing in any municipality that requires an STR license (B.C.'s short-term rental legislation - Province of British Columbia), and platforms are required to remove listings that lack a license at the request of the local government (B.C.'s short-term rental legislation - Province of British Columbia). Platforms must also share data about their listings with cities on a monthly basis to facilitate enforcement (B.C.'s short-term rental legislation - Province of British Columbia).

Notably, a provincial short-term rental registry is being established. By May 1, 2025, all short-term rental hosts and platforms in B.C. must register and obtain a provincial registration number (B.C.'s short-term rental legislation - Province of British Columbia). Hosts will be required to display this provincial registration number in their online listings, and platforms must verify that listings are properly registered. This centralized registry will help ensure compliance across the province and prevent hosts from operating under the radar. The overarching aim of these measures is to discourage commercial-scale short-term rentals that remove housing from the long-term market, thereby easing rental shortages (B.C. judge dismisses challenge of province's short-term rental rules).

(What this means for you: If you are a homeowner or investor who operates vacation rentals, you will need to comply with these new rules or potentially face steep fines. Many condo owners who were renting units on Airbnb may now have to switch to long-term tenancies or sell, since only one’s primary residence is allowed for short stays. Neighbors and communities may benefit from a reduction in “party house” rentals and see more units return to local renters. Indeed, the new rules have already survived an initial court challenge by some STR operators – a judge dismissed the challenge in early 2025, leaving the law in force (B.C. judge dismisses challenge of short-term rental rules). Overall, anyone engaging in short-term renting in B.C. must register and follow local bylaws closely, as enforcement is much tougher now.)

New Tax Measures: Flipping Tax and Transfer Tax Relief

Property transactions in B.C. are seeing new taxes and new tax breaks as the government tries to curb speculation while aiding buyers. Starting January 1, 2025, B.C. will implement a new Home Flipping Tax on residential properties sold within two years of purchase (BC Gov News) (BC home flipping tax - Province of British Columbia). This tax – officially the Residential Property (Short-Term Holding) Profit Tax Act – imposes a 20% tax on any profit from selling a home in the first year of ownership, with the rate tapering in the second year (2024 B.C. Budget: More Changes to B.C.’s Real Estate Landscape - Lexology). After two years, the tax no longer applies. There are important exemptions for certain life circumstances: sellers forced to move due to reasons like divorce, the death of a spouse, disability, job relocation, or other hardship will be exempt from the flipping tax (2024 B.C. Budget: More Changes to B.C.’s Real Estate Landscape - Lexology). Notably, this B.C. flipping tax is separate from the federal government’s own anti-flipping tax rule (in effect since 2023), which treats gains on homes sold within 12 months as business income (BC home flipping tax - Province of British Columbia). The provincial tax is an additional 20% levy and is not part of income tax – it will be collected to directly fund housing initiatives in the province (BC Gov News). For speculators and “flippers,” this means quick flips will now carry a hefty penalty, making fast turn-around sales far less profitable in B.C. For ordinary homeowners, the message is to think long-term; those who sell a property within two years of buying (for reasons other than an exempt life event) should budget for this new tax. Buyers may benefit indirectly if the policy succeeds in deterring purely speculative bidding up of home prices.

On the other side of the ledger, the B.C. government has expanded certain tax relief programs to help home purchasers. As of April 1, 2024, the threshold for the First-Time Home Buyers’ Property Transfer Tax (PTT) exemption was raised to $835,000 (from the previous $500,000) (2024 B.C. Budget: More Changes to B.C.’s Real Estate Landscape - Lexology). Qualifying first-time buyers in B.C. now pay no property transfer tax on the first $500,000 of a home’s value, with a partial tax break up to a home value of $860,000 (2024 B.C. Budget: More Changes to B.C.’s Real Estate Landscape - Lexology). (Above $860,000, the standard PTT applies.) This is a significant boost – under the old $500k limit, many buyers in B.C.’s pricey market couldn’t fully benefit. The new threshold saved first-time buyers as much as $8,000 on their tax bill, and indeed more than 22,000 first-time buyers were helped into homes in 2024 after this change, over double the number from the prior year (BC Gov News). Similarly, the province expanded the Newly Built Home PTT exemption: previously, new primary residences priced up to $750,000 were exempt; that cap has now been lifted to $1.1 million (with a partial exemption up to $1.15 million) (2024 B.C. Budget: More Changes to B.C.’s Real Estate Landscape - Lexology). This expansion recognizes that new construction is often more expensive – it allows many middle-income families to buy newly built homes (like condos or houses from developers) without incurring transfer tax, thereby saving up to $17,000 (the PTT on a $1.1M home) and encouraging development. These changes make home buying a bit more affordable for first-timers and those “moving up” into newly built homes.

There are also new incentives for those building or purchasing rental housing. The 2024 BC Budget introduced a PTT exemption for purpose-built rental buildings acquired from 2025 through 2030 (2024 B.C. Budget: More Changes to B.C.’s Real Estate Landscape - Lexology). To qualify, the property must be a newly built housing development with at least four residential rental units, all to be used as rentals. A purchaser of such a building (e.g. a developer or a rental housing operator) will pay no property transfer tax on the transaction. This measure, combined with the federal government’s recent elimination of the 5% GST on new purpose-built rental projects (2024 B.C. Budget: More Changes to B.C.’s Real Estate Landscape - Lexology), substantially reduces the upfront tax cost of creating new rental housing. The aim is to improve project viability for rental developments and spur the construction of more apartments and rental units. For investors and developers, this is a welcome tax break that could make marginal projects financially feasible, ultimately benefiting renters by increasing the supply of rental homes.

Finally, a small but noteworthy tweak was made to B.C.’s Speculation and Vacancy Tax (SVT) rules effective January 1, 2024. The SVT is an annual tax targeting homes left vacant in certain urban areas of B.C. Under the new amendment, if a long-term lease (with a term of at least 50 years) is registered on title for a property, the lessee (tenant) is responsible for any applicable speculation tax, rather than the owner (2024 B.C. Budget: More Changes to B.C.’s Real Estate Landscape - Lexology). In other words, someone who holds a long-term lease on a residential property must make the SVT declaration and would pay the tax if the home is empty – not the underlying landlord. This change ensures that the person actually enjoying use of the property is accountable for keeping it occupied or paying the tax. It’s particularly relevant in leasehold developments or situations like prepaid strata leases. Most ordinary homeowners won’t be affected by this, but it closes a loophole and is good to know if you ever purchase a property where a long-term lease is involved.

(What this means for you: House flippers and speculators now face a significant new tax if they try to “flip” properties in B.C., which may discourage quick resale schemes. First-time buyers and families buying new homes, on the other hand, stand to save thousands in closing costs thanks to the higher tax exemptions – potentially making the difference in affording a home. Investors in rental apartments will benefit from tax relief at both the provincial and federal level, ideally leading to more rental units being built (good news for tenants seeking housing). Overall, the tax changes seek to shift the real estate market away from short-term profit-taking and towards long-term housing creation and accessibility.)

Foreign Buyer Ban Extended and Other Federal Developments

At the national level, the Canadian federal government has doubled down on measures to keep housing available for Canadians. In early 2024, the federal government announced a two-year extension of the ban on foreign purchases of residential property, formally known as the Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act. This ban came into effect on January 1, 2023 for an initial two-year term; it was set to expire on Jan 1, 2025, but will now remain in force until January 1, 2027 (Government announces two-year extension to ban on foreign ownership of Canadian housing - Canada.ca) ( Dentons - Federal government announces extension of the prohibition on the purchase of residential property by non-Canadians ). The law prohibits non-Canadian citizens and non-permanent residents, as well as foreign commercial entities, from buying residential real estate in Canada (with some limited exceptions such as recreational properties, multi-unit buildings over a certain size, and homes purchased by newcomers with work permits meeting specified conditions). The policy’s intent is to prevent foreign capital from driving up housing prices in Canadian markets (Government announces two-year extension to ban on foreign ownership of Canadian housing - Canada.ca) and to ensure that homes are used for people to live in, rather than as speculative investments by overseas buyers. For the B.C. market – especially Metro Vancouver, which has historically attracted foreign investment – this extended ban means foreign buyer demand will remain subdued for an additional two years. Local buyers may face a bit less competition from abroad, which can be helpful in a tight market, though other factors like domestic demand and interest rates play a larger role in pricing. Sellers, on the other hand, will continue to have a smaller pool of potential buyers (excluding most foreign purchasers) until 2027, which is something to keep in mind if you are looking to sell a property that might have international interest.

In addition to the foreign buyer ban, the federal government and provinces are introducing other policy shifts aimed at housing. As noted above, one federal move in late 2023 was to eliminate GST on new rental housing developments (2024 B.C. Budget: More Changes to B.C.’s Real Estate Landscape - Lexology) – a significant incentive for builders of apartment buildings, student housing, and other long-term rental projects. (Provincial sales tax does not generally apply to new housing, so GST was the main sales tax cost on construction; its removal acts like a 5% price cut on building rentals.) The hope is that this, along with B.C.’s matching PTT exemption, will kick-start more rental construction to address housing shortages. Another federal initiative impacting real estate is the ongoing enforcement of the Underused Housing Tax (UHT), a 1% annual federal tax on vacant or underused residential properties owned by non-residents. The UHT, which took effect in 2022, requires owners to file declarations each year; in 2024 the Canada Revenue Agency ramped up enforcement of this relatively new tax, reminding foreign owners and certain Canadian companies and trusts holding property of their filing obligations. While not a new law in 2024, it’s part of the evolving landscape of real estate regulations that property owners (especially those with international ties) need to be aware of. The overall trend at the federal level is a continued focus on housing affordability – using tax measures and ownership restrictions to disincentivize vacant homes and speculative purchases, while also investing in programs to build more homes.

(What this means for you: If you are not a Canadian citizen or permanent resident looking to buy a home in B.C. (or anywhere in Canada), you will generally be barred from doing so until 2027 due to the extended foreign buyer prohibition. Canadian residents, meanwhile, might find slightly less competition from foreign bidders when house-hunting. Developers and investors in rental housing benefit from the GST relief on new projects, improving the economics of building much-needed rental units. Overall, federal policy is aligning with B.C.’s aggressive approach to make housing more accessible and to prioritize homes for those living and working in Canada.)

Notable Case Law: Real Estate in the Courts

Legislatures aren’t the only ones shaping real estate law – the courts have delivered decisions in the past year that property owners and practitioners should note. In Yu v. 1020590 B.C. Ltd., 2024 BCSC 179, a case decided in early 2024, the B.C. Supreme Court ordered the cancellation of several Certificates of Pending Litigation (CPLs) that had been registered against three development properties in Surrey (QUICKSCRIBE REPORTER). The plaintiffs claimed an interest in the properties (which can justify a CPL, effectively freezing the title), but the court found their claims were not viable under the Land Title Act. The judge’s decision to cancel the CPLs reinforces that tenuous or meritless claims cannot be used to tie up real estate indefinitely. For buyers and developers, it’s a reminder of the importance of clearing any unwarranted charges or notices from a title – and for would-be plaintiffs, a warning that courts will require a solid basis before encumbering property with a lawsuit notice.

Another significant case focused on liability for construction defects in condos and other buildings. In a recent Court of Appeal decision (Centurion Apartment Properties LP v. Loco Investments Inc.), the court considered whether professionals involved in a building’s construction owe a duty of care to subsequent owners. In that case, condo owners had discovered dangerous structural defects and sued the engineering consultants for negligence, even though the owners hadn’t directly hired those consultants. The B.C. Supreme Court originally dismissed the claims, but the Court of Appeal reversed that decision, finding that a prima facie duty of care did exist between the engineers and the eventual condo owners for serious defects (QUICKSCRIBE REPORTER). In essence, professionals could be held accountable to future owners if their work was negligent and caused foreseeable harm, despite the lack of a direct contract. This is an important development for homeowners dealing with construction deficiencies – it potentially expands who they can sue to fix costly issues. Builders, architects, and engineers should take note as well: the court is affirming that their responsibility for sound construction extends to those who ultimately live in or own the property, not just the party who originally hired them.

(Why these cases matter: The Yu case highlights how the courts will strike a balance between protecting legitimate claims and preventing abuse of the system to stall developments – good news for developers and buyers who might otherwise be caught in protracted litigation over a property. The Centurion case is a win for homeowners (especially strata owners) facing building defects, as it recognizes their right to seek recourse against negligent professionals even without direct contracts. Law is always evolving, and these decisions clarify rights and remedies in the real estate context. Property owners and investors should stay informed on legal precedents like these, as they can impact strategies for dispute resolution, due diligence, and risk management in real estate transactions.)

Conclusion

From sweeping zoning law changes to new taxes and landmark court rulings, 2024 has been a transformative year for real estate law in British Columbia and Canada. Governments are using every tool at their disposal – legislation, regulation, and taxation – to address the housing affordability challenge. For buyers, there are new opportunities (higher tax exemptions, potential cooling of competition) but also new rules to follow. Sellers and investors must navigate taxes aimed at speculative gains and stricter enforcement of property use regulations. Homeowners may find it easier to add rental units or harder to use their homes for short-term rentals, depending on their situation. The bottom line: staying informed is crucial. These developments underscore the value of consulting with legal professionals on real estate matters. A qualified real estate lawyer can help interpret how these changes affect your rights or plans – whether you’re purchasing your first home, investing in property, managing a rental portfolio, or embarking on a development project. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, proactive advice will ensure you remain compliant and make the most of the new opportunities while avoiding the pitfalls in B.C.’s dynamic real estate market.

Sources:

• Government of B.C. News Release on housing initiatives and tax changes (BC Gov News) (BC Gov News)
• McCarthy Tétrault LLP – 2024 B.C. Budget Real Estate Highlights (2024 B.C. Budget: More Changes to B.C.’s Real Estate Landscape - Lexology) (2024 B.C. Budget: More Changes to B.C.’s Real Estate Landscape - Lexology) (2024 B.C. Budget: More Changes to B.C.’s Real Estate Landscape - Lexology)
• Government of B.C. – Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act overview (B.C.'s short-term rental legislation - Province of British Columbia) (B.C.'s short-term rental legislation - Province of British Columbia) (B.C.'s short-term rental legislation - Province of British Columbia)
• Dentons law firm – analysis of zoning changes (Bill 44) and restrictive covenants ( Dentons - Restrictive covenants: A barrier to housing developments in British Columbia ) ( Dentons - Restrictive covenants: A barrier to housing developments in British Columbia )
• Department of Finance Canada – News release on foreign buyer ban extension (Government announces two-year extension to ban on foreign ownership of Canadian housing - Canada.ca) (Government announces two-year extension to ban on foreign ownership of Canadian housing - Canada.ca)
• B.C. Court of Appeal and Supreme Court case summaries (Centurion; Yu v. 1020590 B.C. Ltd.) (QUICKSCRIBE REPORTER)

New Corporate Transparency Requirements

One of the most notable changes is the push for greater transparency in corporate ownership. In 2023, the BC government passed Bill 20 (Business Corporations Amendment Act), paving the way for a public beneficial ownership registry by 2025 (Increasing transparency: British Columbia moves to publicize corporate beneficial ownership - Lexology). This means that information about the individuals who ultimately own or control shares in private BC companies will no longer be kept solely in internal records – it will be filed with and made accessible through a government-managed registry (Increasing transparency: British Columbia moves to publicize corporate beneficial ownership - Lexology) (Increasing transparency: British Columbia moves to publicize corporate beneficial ownership - Lexology). The move follows the Cullen Commission’s recommendations to combat money laundering by shedding light on opaque company ownership (Increasing transparency: British Columbia moves to publicize corporate beneficial ownership - Lexology).

What does this mean for BC businesses? If you own a BC-incorporated company, you’ve likely already been required since 2020 to maintain a private “transparency register” of significant individuals. The upcoming change will require submitting that information to the corporate registry for public access, increasing corporate accountability. Business owners should ensure their transparency records are accurate and up to date, as any errors or omissions may soon be visible to the public and regulators. On the upside, greater transparency is expected to boost trust and deter the misuse of shell companies for illicit activities, creating a more level playing field for honest businesses.

At the federal level, similar transparency reforms have arrived. Amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) took effect on January 22, 2024, requiring federal corporations to report information on individuals with significant control to the federal government for inclusion in a planned public registry (Amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act Officially Ends Ownership Confidentiality in Canada - Сox & Palmer). Once the federal registry is operational, it will disclose key details about controlling shareholders (such as names, citizenship, and how they control the company) to anyone searching the database (Amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act Officially Ends Ownership Confidentiality in Canada - Сox & Palmer). Crucially, the penalties for non-compliance are much tougher – fines up to $1,000,000 (up from the previous $200,000) and even potential dissolution of the corporation for failing to file the required information (Amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act Officially Ends Ownership Confidentiality in Canada - Сox & Palmer). For BC businesses incorporated federally or with federal affiliates, this is a clear signal to get your house in order. The era of anonymous corporations is ending (Amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act Officially Ends Ownership Confidentiality in Canada - Сox & Palmer). Companies should review their ownership structures, identify all individuals who exercise significant control (generally those owning 25% or more, or with significant influence), and prepare to report that information annually and upon changes. The bottom line: transparency is now a legal obligation, and hefty fines await those who ignore it.

Modernizing Legislation for Commercial Transactions

Several legislative updates in BC are aimed at modernizing the business law framework and making commercial transactions more efficient. A prime example is the new Money Judgment Enforcement Act, which received Royal Assent in October 2023 (BCLI welcomes updates to money judgments enforcement legislation - British Columbia Law Institute) and is slated to come into force in 2025. This Act overhauls how court judgments for money are enforced in BC, replacing the decades-old procedures under the Court Order Enforcement Act. The goal is to make it easier and more effective for a winning party to collect what they are owed after a lawsuit (BCLI welcomes updates to money judgments enforcement legislation - British Columbia Law Institute) (BCLI welcomes updates to money judgments enforcement legislation - British Columbia Law Institute).

Under the current system, creditors often have to navigate a patchwork of steps (like obtaining writs of execution or garnishment orders) to enforce judgments. The new Act streamlines this with a modern registry and enforcement process. For example, a notable change is that monetary orders from the Civil Resolution Tribunal (BC’s online small claims and strata dispute forum) can be directly registered in a new money judgments registry, and the tribunal will be able to register a judgment on a party’s behalf (BCLI welcomes updates to money judgments enforcement legislation - British Columbia Law Institute). This saves time and makes collection more automatic for successful claimants. The Act also allows creditors to use a single system to pursue various enforcement methods, rather than initiating separate court processes. For businesses, this means faster and more cost-effective debt collection when you’ve obtained a judgment. Conversely, if your company owes a judgment debt, it will be harder to delay or avoid payment under the new regime. Now is a good time to review credit control practices – robust upfront contract terms and security agreements can help avoid ever being on the wrong end of these enforcement tools. Overall, the modernization is a welcome change that brings BC in line with other jurisdictions, giving creditors better odds of recovering debts while providing clear rules for debtors on how judgments can be satisfied (BCLI welcomes updates to money judgments enforcement legislation - British Columbia Law Institute) (BCLI welcomes updates to money judgments enforcement legislation - British Columbia Law Institute).

Another area of legislative change that can affect BC businesses are federal laws targeting corporate accountability in supply chains. In mid-2023, Parliament enacted the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act (formerly Bill S-211). Starting in 2024, many Canadian companies (including those in BC) must annually report on measures taken to prevent forced or child labour in their supply chains (Bill S-211 means new reporting requirements | EY - Canada). This “Modern Slavery Act” for Canada applies to larger entities meeting certain thresholds (for instance, publicly traded companies or those with significant assets or employees). The first reports were due by May 31, 2024, with information to be published for public and shareholder scrutiny. Practically, even if your business is not captured by these rules yet, the trend is toward greater ethical disclosure. Many businesses are proactively reviewing their suppliers and implementing codes of conduct to ensure they can declare their products are free from exploitative labor. Those who do fall under the law should treat these reports as more than a paperwork exercise – they carry reputational risk and potential penalties if ignored. In short, demonstrating social responsibility is increasingly becoming a legal requirement, not just a branding choice.

Contract Law: Clarity on Exclusion Clauses and Fair Dealing

Several court decisions in the past year have provided guidance on contract law, offering lessons for businesses in drafting and executing agreements. A significant ruling came from the Supreme Court of Canada in Earthco Soil Mixtures Inc. v. Pine Valley Enterprises Inc. (2024 SCC 20). This case clarified the use of exclusion clauses in contracts, which are provisions that limit or exclude liability for certain outcomes. The dispute involved a sale of goods (topsoil for a landscaping project) and whether the seller could contract out of the usual legal warranty that the goods would be fit for the buyer’s intended purpose. The Supreme Court affirmed that parties can override default statutory warranties by agreement, so long as their intent to do so is clear (Supreme Court of Canada Continues to Shape Contractual Interpretation Around Common-Sense Pragmatism | BD&P). Importantly, the Court said no specific “magic words” are required – what matters is that the contract, read as a whole, shows the parties meant to opt out of those default protections (Supreme Court of Canada Continues to Shape Contractual Interpretation Around Common-Sense Pragmatism | BD&P). In practical terms, this decision reinforces a common-sense approach: businesses have freedom to allocate risks in a contract as they see fit, but they need to spell it out unambiguously. An exclusion clause tucked in fine print or written in vague terms may not stand up in court. Tip for businesses: When including clauses that limit liability or negate warranties (for example, “As-is” sales or caps on damages), make sure the language is express and conspicuous, and ideally acknowledged by all parties. That way, a court will be more likely to enforce it, as was the case in Earthco, rather than finding that the clause was too oblique to remove the buyer’s normal legal protections.

Another area of contract law addressed recently is the doctrine of illegality in contracts – in other words, when a contract is unenforceable because it involves unlawful conduct. In Scott v. Golden Oaks Enterprises Inc. (2024 SCC 32), the Supreme Court weighed in on a complex scenario stemming from a Ponzi scheme. Investors had signed referral agreements to bring in new clients to the scheme, and when the scheme collapsed, a question arose: were those referral agreements “illegal contracts” (and thus void), or could they still be enforced? The Supreme Court found that the Ontario Court of Appeal had gone too far in declaring the contracts void for illegality (Scott v. Golden Oaks Enterprises Inc. - SCC Cases). The referral agreements themselves did not require the parties to do anything illegal, even though they were connected to an illegal enterprise. The ruling clarified that not every contract associated with unlawful activity will be deemed void – only if the contract’s object or consideration is illegal or if enforcing it would undermine the integrity of the justice system will the courts refuse to enforce it. The practical takeaway is nuanced: businesses should of course avoid any contracts that involve breaking the law, as those won’t be upheld. However, if a counterparty’s conduct (unknown to you) has unlawful aspects, your contract with them isn’t automatically worthless. This provides some reassurance that deals made in good faith won’t lightly be invalidated due to a partner’s wrongdoing. As always, due diligence on who you’re dealing with is the best policy – it helps avoid entanglement in any illegal schemes to begin with.

The courts have also continued to develop the principle of good faith in contractual dealings, which has been a hot topic since the Supreme Court recognized a general duty of honesty in contracts a few years ago. In 2024, decisions such as British Columbia v. Taylor in the BC Court of Appeal reiterated that parties must perform their contracts honestly and reasonably. While each case is fact-specific, the trend in the case law serves as a reminder that acting in bad faith – for example, deliberately misleading the other side or exercising contractual powers in a capricious or unfair way – can lead to legal liability even if the contract doesn’t explicitly say so. For businesses, this means that how you behave during the life of a contract matters. Even a well-written contract cannot shield a party who overtly abuses their contractual discretion or deceives their partner. The key is to be transparent and fair in your dealings: if circumstances change, approach renegotiations or contract adjustments openly; if you have a right to terminate or demand strict performance, exercise it within the bounds of fair play. Not only does this reduce the risk of lawsuits, it also preserves business relationships and your reputation as a reliable partner.

Shareholder Disputes and Directors’ Duties

On the corporate governance front, recent cases in BC highlight the importance of following proper legal processes in shareholder disputes and clarify what remedies minority owners can (and cannot) expect. A notable decision is Bhuthal v. Sahsi (2024 BCCA 73), where the BC Court of Appeal stepped in to uphold the correct procedure for derivative actions (i.e. lawsuits brought on behalf of a company by a shareholder). In this case, two equal owners were embroiled in litigation over their companies. One owner tried an unconventional tactic: asking the court to appoint an independent third party to represent the companies, claiming that all insiders were too conflicted to make decisions for the company in the lawsuit (Corporate litigation update – shareholder rights under corporate statutes in Q1 2024 | Special Situations Law). While a lower court allowed this end-run around the usual process, the Court of Appeal reversed that decision. The higher court emphasized that the Business Corporations Act sets out a specific two-step process for situations where those in control of a company can’t or won’t pursue the company’s legal rights (Corporate litigation update – shareholder rights under corporate statutes in Q1 2024 | Special Situations Law) (Corporate litigation update – shareholder rights under corporate statutes in Q1 2024 | Special Situations Law). First, an interested person should apply to act as the company’s representative solely for the purpose of asking for someone else to be appointed. Second, that appointee (often an independent lawyer) can then be appointed to control the conduct of the proceeding (Corporate litigation update – shareholder rights under corporate statutes in Q1 2024 | Special Situations Law). By insisting on this procedure, the Court of Appeal made it clear that you cannot simply bypass the derivative action rules by invoking a court’s general power to “do what’s appropriate.”

For businesses, the Bhuthal case underscores a couple of practical points. If you’re a minority shareholder who suspects wrongdoing by those in control, you must follow the statutory steps – usually, that means applying for leave (permission) to bring a derivative action on behalf of the company. Courts will insist on this structured approach to ensure that only meritorious claims proceed and that the company’s interests are properly represented. On the flip side, for directors and majority owners, this case is a reminder that courts are watching: if there is alleged fraud or misconduct, you can expect a minority shareholder to use the legal tools at their disposal to challenge it, and you won’t be able to avoid a derivative lawsuit simply by claiming everyone is “conflicted.” Good governance and addressing grievances early can prevent these costly court interventions.

Another BC Court of Appeal decision, McDougall v. Knutsen (2024 BCCA 55), touched on the remedies available in shareholder disputes – specifically, the limits of the oppression remedy. The oppression remedy is a powerful tool that allows courts to intervene when a company’s affairs have been conducted in a way that is oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to a shareholder (often a minority shareholder). In Knutsen, a minority shareholder who felt aggrieved asked the court to order that his shares be bought out, claiming it was unfair for him to remain stuck in the company without the benefits he expected. However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that without a finding of actual oppression, the court could not force the other shareholders to buy out the minority’s shares (The Trial Reasons for Judgment | Arpal Dosanjh). In essence, dissatisfaction or a sense of unfairness isn’t enough – there must be evidence that the majority acted in a wrongful manner breaching the shareholder’s reasonable expectations.

For business owners, especially those in smaller companies or family enterprises, the Knutsen case is a useful reality check. Not every shareholder disagreement warrants legal intervention. If you’re a minority shareholder, courts will look for concrete oppressive conduct (such as being excluded from decision-making, denial of rightful benefits, or mismanagement that harms your interests) before granting relief like a mandatory buyout. And if you’re in the majority, you should still act carefully and fairly – while courts won’t automatically rescue every unhappy investor, they will step in if you cross the line into oppressive behavior. Having a well-drafted shareholders’ agreement is often the best preventative: it can set out exit mechanisms (like shotgun clauses or buy-sell arrangements) to handle deadlocks or departures, so that parties don’t have to run to court at all. In summary, recent case law confirms that directors and controlling shareholders must adhere to their duties and statutory remedies, but courts will also uphold the rights of the majority when they have acted lawfully and fairly.

Emerging Trends: Governance, Disclosure, and ESG Considerations

Beyond the courtroom and legislature, broader regulatory trends are shaping corporate governance and disclosure practices. One major trend is the increasing emphasis on ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) factors in business. Companies are facing new expectations to report on sustainability and governance matters that would have been considered extra-financial a decade ago.

For instance, climate-related disclosure is on the horizon of becoming mandatory for many companies in Canada. The newly formed Canadian Sustainability Standards Board (CSSB) released proposed national standards for climate-related financial disclosures in 2024, with a final version expected by the end of 2024 (Canadian mandatory climate disclosure rules in the forecast). These standards are designed to align with global frameworks and will likely be adopted (perhaps in 2025 or soon after) by Canadian securities regulators, including the BC Securities Commission, for public companies. In practical terms, public companies and large private companies should prepare to report their climate risks and greenhouse gas emissions in a more rigorous way. Even if you run a smaller private business, awareness of climate risks and sustainable practices is increasingly important – banks, investors, and business partners are starting to ask for this information as part of their due diligence. It’s wise to get ahead by integrating climate considerations into your risk management and strategy now. This can include measuring your carbon footprint, considering the impact of extreme weather on your operations, or ensuring your governance structures (like the board or a committee) are overseeing climate-related risks. Early action will make compliance easier once formal rules kick in, and it can also enhance your reputation with customers and stakeholders who value sustainability.

Board diversity and governance transparency are another aspect of ESG gaining legal traction. Federally, amendments to the CBCA now require public corporations to not only disclose the gender diversity of their boards and senior management, but also diversity in other underrepresented groups such as Indigenous peoples, racialized communities, and persons with disabilities. While these federal rules apply to CBCA companies, they reflect a nationwide push for more inclusive leadership in business. BC-based companies listed on stock exchanges are also encouraged (and in some cases required under exchange policies or securities guidelines) to adopt diversity policies and disclose progress. The practical effect is that boards are under pressure to refresh their composition and consider a wider range of candidates to bring diverse perspectives. For BC entrepreneurs and businesses, this means governance practices are evolving: strong corporate governance now encompasses not just financial oversight but also transparency in how the company is run and who is running it. Embracing these governance best practices can improve decision-making and is looked upon favorably by investors and partners.

Finally, it’s worth noting the changes in federal competition and antitrust law, which can affect corporate strategy for mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures. Over the past two years, the Canadian government introduced significant amendments to the Competition Act, culminating in new provisions coming into force in 2023 and 2024. These changes have tightened the rules on mergers and anti-competitive conduct. For example, the long-standing “efficiencies defence” – which previously allowed a merger to proceed if cost savings outweighed anti-competitive effects – has been repealed (The Evolving Landscape of Merger Review: Understanding Canada’s Competition Act Amendments and Forth | Blakes). Additionally, the Competition Bureau now has greater leeway to challenge mergers based solely on high market share or concentration, with new presumptions shifting the burden onto merging parties to prove a deal won’t substantially lessen competition (The Evolving Landscape of Merger Review: Understanding Canada’s Competition Act Amendments and Forth | Blakes). For BC businesses, the takeaway is that if you are planning to sell your company, merge with a competitor, or even enter into collaborations with competitors, you must be mindful of these stricter laws. Transactions that might have flown under the radar before could face more scrutiny now. It’s prudent to seek legal advice early in the deal planning stage to navigate the new landscape. Even on the day-to-day commercial side, practices like pricing strategies, distribution agreements, or industry collaborations should be reviewed for compliance – the penalties for anti-competitive behavior (like price-fixing or abuse of dominance) were also increased. In short, competition law is becoming more enforcement-heavy in Canada, aligning with global trends, and businesses need to adjust their compliance measures accordingly.

---

Conclusion: The period of 2024-2025 has brought a wave of changes to corporate and commercial law in British Columbia. Greater transparency in corporate ownership, modernized enforcement of judgments, clarified contract doctrines, and evolving duties in governance all point to a business environment that values accountability and fairness. BC business owners and corporate directors should take stock of these developments. By staying informed and proactive – updating compliance practices, revising contracts, and following good governance principles – companies can not only avoid legal pitfalls but also position themselves for success in a landscape where trust and transparency are paramount. As always, consult with legal counsel about how these changes impact your specific business, and don’t hesitate to take advantage of the resources and expertise available to help navigate the new rules. The law is moving forward, and with the right guidance, so can your business.

Sources:

• Dentons, Increasing transparency: British Columbia moves to publicize corporate beneficial ownership (Increasing transparency: British Columbia moves to publicize corporate beneficial ownership - Lexology) (Increasing transparency: British Columbia moves to publicize corporate beneficial ownership - Lexology) (Increasing transparency: British Columbia moves to publicize corporate beneficial ownership - Lexology) (Bill 20, 2023).
• Cox & Palmer, Amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act Officially Ends Ownership Confidentiality in Canada (Amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act Officially Ends Ownership Confidentiality in Canada - Сox & Palmer) (Amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act Officially Ends Ownership Confidentiality in Canada - Сox & Palmer) (Amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act Officially Ends Ownership Confidentiality in Canada - Сox & Palmer) (CBCA beneficial ownership registry, 2024).
• BCLI, BCLI welcomes updates to money judgments enforcement legislation (BCLI welcomes updates to money judgments enforcement legislation - British Columbia Law Institute) (BCLI welcomes updates to money judgments enforcement legislation - British Columbia Law Institute) (BCLI welcomes updates to money judgments enforcement legislation - British Columbia Law Institute) (Money Judgment Enforcement Act, 2023).
• Public Safety Canada / EY, New reporting requirements under Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act (Bill S-211 means new reporting requirements | EY - Canada) (Modern slavery reporting, 2024).
• BD&P Law, SCC continues to shape contractual interpretation (Earthco v. Pine Valley) (Supreme Court of Canada Continues to Shape Contractual Interpretation Around Common-Sense Pragmatism | BD&P) (Exclusion clauses, 2024).
• CanLII (Supreme Court of Canada), Scott v. Golden Oaks Enterprises Inc., summary (Scott v. Golden Oaks Enterprises Inc. - SCC Cases) (Illegal contracts, 2024).
• Norton Rose Fulbright, Bhuthal v. Sahsi (2024 BCCA 73) case summary (Corporate litigation update – shareholder rights under corporate statutes in Q1 2024 | Special Situations Law) (Corporate litigation update – shareholder rights under corporate statutes in Q1 2024 | Special Situations Law) (Corporate litigation update – shareholder rights under corporate statutes in Q1 2024 | Special Situations Law) (Derivative actions and corporate representative).
• LinkedIn post (Arpal Dosanjh), McDougall v. Knutsen (2024 BCCA 55) (The Trial Reasons for Judgment | Arpal Dosanjh) (Oppression remedy limits).
• Osler/Blakes, Competition Act Amendments and Merger Review Changes (The Evolving Landscape of Merger Review: Understanding Canada’s Competition Act Amendments and Forth | Blakes) (Repeal of efficiencies defence and stricter merger rules, 2023-24).
• Canadian Securities Administrators / Torys, Climate-related disclosure update (Canadian mandatory climate disclosure rules in the forecast) (CSSB standards expected, 2024).

Legislative Changes in B.C. Divorce Law

1. Pets Are Now Treated Differently Than Property: As of January 15, 2024, changes to B.C.’s Family Law Act explicitly recognize companion animals (pets) as a special category in divorce and separation disputes (BC Gov News) (BC Gov News). In the past, pets were simply treated like property to be divided. Now, new factors must be considered when deciding who keeps the family pet, such as:

• Each person’s ability and willingness to care for the animal (e.g. who can meet the pet’s needs) (BC Gov News).
• The relationship a child has with the pet (to avoid separating kids from their beloved animal) (BC Gov News).
• Any history or risk of family violence or cruelty involving the animal (ensuring the pet’s safety) (BC Gov News).
• The circumstances of the pet’s acquisition and care, and any other relevant factors (Gardiner Roberts - Blog) (Gardiner Roberts - Blog).

These amendments, hailed as the first of their kind in Canada, recognize that “pets are unique members of our families, not inanimate property like furniture” (BC Gov News). Couples are encouraged to agree on arrangements (including potential joint custody of a pet), but if they can’t agree, a court can now make an order for who gets ownership and possession of the pet (BC Gov News). The bottom line: your family dog or cat won’t be treated the same way as a couch or a car in a divorce – the law will look at what’s best for the animal and the family.

2. Easier Access to French-Language Divorce Proceedings: On December 1, 2024, amendments to the federal Divorce Act and B.C.’s Supreme Court Family Rules came into effect to allow bilingual proceedings in divorce cases (BC Gov News). This means British Columbians can now file court documents in French or English and have their divorce hearings conducted in French if they prefer (BC Gov News). Previously, a Francophone spouse had to hire a private interpreter to use French in B.C. courts. Now, forms and even combined divorce/family law cases (where both federal Divorce Act and provincial Family Law Act issues are addressed together) can proceed in French without duplication (BC Gov News). Judges can manage bilingual cases, and deadlines are adjusted to allow time for translation (BC Gov News). For French-speaking families, this change improves access to justice in their language.

3. Updated Rules for Dividing Pensions: Changes to how pensions are divided on separation are being implemented through recent amendments to the Family Law Act. Bill 17 – 2023 (Family Law Amendment Act) introduced reforms to pension division, some of which took effect in May 2023 and the rest coming into force on January 1, 2025 (Bill 17 – British Columbia amends Family Law Act - Eckler). These changes clarify and adjust the rights of spouses who are splitting pension benefits. For example, whether a spouse can transfer out their share of a defined-benefit pension now depends on what the pension plan allows (Bill 17 – British Columbia amends Family Law Act - Eckler). The rules also address technical issues like how survivor benefits can be waived and paid out (Bill 17 – British Columbia amends Family Law Act - Eckler). For divorcing couples, the takeaway is that pension division is now governed by more specific rules to ensure fairness and avoid surprises. If you or your spouse have a pension, it’s worth getting legal advice on how the new rules affect your share.

4. Ongoing Reforms on Family Violence and Child Safety: The B.C. government is not stopping at pets and pensions. It has launched a public consultation on further family law changes in areas such as family violence, protection orders, parenting assessments, and how children’s views are heard (BC Gov News). This started in early 2024 and ran until March 31, 2024 (BC Gov News). The goal is to keep updating the law so that “the health, safety and well-being of children continue to be at the centre of every decision”, according to Premier David Eby (BC Gov News). We can expect additional amendments in the near future aimed at better protecting children and victims of family violence in the separation process.

Notable Court Decisions Shaping Divorce Law

Legal changes don’t only come from new legislation – court decisions can significantly affect how laws are applied. In 2024 and early 2025, several important judgments from B.C. courts have provided clarity on divorce-related issues like pet custody, parenting in the context of family violence, division of property, and spousal support. Here are some key cases:

(In legal first, B.C. judge orders shared custody of golden retriever in divorce settlement - Clark Woods LLP) 1. Pet Custody Case – Bayat v. Mavedati (2024): In a groundbreaking decision, the B.C. Supreme Court applied the new pet custody law to an actual family dispute. The case involved a divorcing couple fighting over their golden retriever, Stella. In June 2024, Associate Judge Scott Nielsen ruled that the couple should share custody of their dog 50/50 on a week-on, week-off basis (Gardiner Roberts - Blog). This was one of the first cases under the new legislation and it treated the dog’s well-being as the priority. The judge noted that both spouses deeply cared for the pet and that recent law changes recognize a companion animal is more than just a chattel (personal property) (B.C. Supreme Court Awards Shared Custody of a Dog After Changes to Family Law Act - Animal Legal Defense Fund) (B.C. Supreme Court Awards Shared Custody of a Dog After Changes to Family Law Act - Animal Legal Defense Fund). Because neither party proved the other was unfit or cruel to the dog, the court decided a shared arrangement was fairest for the time being (Gardiner Roberts - Blog) (Gardiner Roberts - Blog). (It’s important to note that while couples can agree to joint ownership of a pet, a court cannot directly order “joint custody” permanently – in this case the shared care was an interim solution pending final agreement or order (Gardiner Roberts - Blog).) Practical tip: if you’re separating and have a pet, know that B.C. courts may consider who can best care for the pet and even a child’s attachment to it, rather than just who bought it (Gardiner Roberts - Blog) (Gardiner Roberts - Blog). It’s wise to gather evidence of your involvement in the pet’s life and be open to compromise, since judges now have guidance to award one of you sole ownership or encourage a sharing agreement in the pet’s best interest.

(BC Court of Appeal Clarifies How Family Violence Impacts the Best Interests of the Child) 2. Parenting & Family Violence – K.M.N. v. S.Z.M. (2024): The B.C. Court of Appeal issued an important ruling that strengthens protection for children in cases involving domestic violence. In this case, a mother appealed a trial decision that had given the father equal, unsupervised parenting time with their young child, despite her allegations (and some evidence) that the father had been violent towards her. In March 2024, the Court of Appeal agreed that the trial judge failed to properly consider the impact of the father’s family violence on the child’s best interests (BC Court of Appeal Clarifies How Family Violence Impacts the Best Interests of the Child). The law in B.C. (and under Canada’s Divorce Act) says a child’s exposure to family violence is a key factor in determining their best interests. The appeal court emphasized it’s “not sufficient to limit the best interests analysis to violence specifically directed towards the child” – courts must consider the harm to children of witnessing abuse against a parent (BC Court of Appeal Clarifies How Family Violence Impacts the Best Interests of the Child). In this case, the father had multiple criminal charges for assaults against the mother (BC Court of Appeal Clarifies How Family Violence Impacts the Best Interests of the Child). The appeal court ordered a new trial to reconsider parenting arrangements, and in the meantime, it put strict conditions in place: the father’s contact with the child must be supervised for now (Important Court of Appeal Decision! — Rise Women’s Legal Centre). The Court of Appeal also cautioned judges against relying on myths and stereotypes – for example, assuming a parent might exaggerate violence to gain an advantage is wrong without evidence (BC Court of Appeal Clarifies How Family Violence Impacts the Best Interests of the Child). Why this matters: If you have experienced intimate partner violence, this decision is a positive sign that higher courts will back you up when you raise safety concerns. It reaffirms that keeping children safe and free from exposure to abuse is paramount. Family violence doesn’t have to be directly aimed at the kids to be relevant – it’s now clear that any violence in the household can influence custody and visitation outcomes (Important Court of Appeal Decision! — Rise Women’s Legal Centre) (Important Court of Appeal Decision! — Rise Women’s Legal Centre). Parents in B.C. should be aware that the courts are obliged to take allegations of family violence very seriously and ensure parenting plans reflect the child’s safety and well-being.

3. Fair Division of Property – Healey v. Healey (2024): Dividing property can be one of the trickiest parts of a divorce, especially when one spouse brought significantly more assets into the marriage. In Healey v. Healey, a Court of Appeal decision from March 2024, the court intervened to adjust an unequal division of family property (Navigating Complex Financial Terrain in Family Law: Lessons in Fairness - Amalia Schon Lawyer & Mediator). In that case, the husband had extensive excluded property (assets he owned before the marriage or inherited, which are not normally split 50/50) – so much so that after the trial’s equal division of family property, he walked away with about $16 million vs. the wife’s $2.2 million (Navigating Complex Financial Terrain in Family Law: Lessons in Fairness - Amalia Schon Lawyer & Mediator). The husband had also used some of those excluded funds to support the family’s lifestyle during the marriage (Navigating Complex Financial Terrain in Family Law: Lessons in Fairness - Amalia Schon Lawyer & Mediator). The Court of Appeal found that an exact equal division was unfair under these circumstances. Using its powers under the Family Law Act to prevent “significant unfairness,” the court ordered the husband to give the wife an additional $1,000,000 in assets beyond the 50/50 split (Navigating Complex Financial Terrain in Family Law: Lessons in Fairness - Amalia Schon Lawyer & Mediator). This gave the wife roughly 35% of the total property instead of about 12%, balancing things out a bit more (Navigating Complex Financial Terrain in Family Law: Lessons in Fairness - Amalia Schon Lawyer & Mediator). While the court didn’t fully explain why it chose the 65/35 split, the case sends a message: B.C. courts can and will deviate from a straight equal division when one spouse would otherwise be left in a much weaker financial position, especially after a long marriage where that spouse contributed in non-financial ways. For spouses: if the standard division of assets would produce a blatantly unfair result, you can ask the court for an adjustment. Factors like one person’s huge head-start wealth, or having financed the marriage with excluded funds, can justify a redistribution in the interest of fairness.

4. Clarity on Tracing Excluded Property – Mills v. O’Connor (2025): Building on the theme of property division, the Court of Appeal in early 2025 tackled a complex issue: when an excluded asset becomes mixed with family property, how do you calculate each spouse’s share? Under the Family Law Act, property one spouse had before the relationship (or received as a gift/inheritance) is “excluded” from equal division, but any increase in its value during the marriage is shared. In Mills v. O’Connor, the spouses had tangled finances involving an inheritance that helped purchase real estate, which later produced insurance money after a fire ( Cozen O’Connor: BC Court of Appeal Clarifies the Appropriate Approach to Tracing Co-Mingled Property [Alert] ) ( Cozen O’Connor: BC Court of Appeal Clarifies the Appropriate Approach to Tracing Co-Mingled Property [Alert] ). The trial judge had effectively given the husband credit for all of his inherited money that went into the property, using a “first-in, first-out” reasoning (imagine the first dollars in were the first dollars out) ( Cozen O’Connor: BC Court of Appeal Clarifies the Appropriate Approach to Tracing Co-Mingled Property [Alert] ). The Court of Appeal disagreed with that approach as too favorable to the spouse with excluded funds ( Cozen O’Connor: BC Court of Appeal Clarifies the Appropriate Approach to Tracing Co-Mingled Property [Alert] ). The higher court ruled that the proper method is a “pro rata” (proportional) approach ( Cozen O’Connor: BC Court of Appeal Clarifies the Appropriate Approach to Tracing Co-Mingled Property [Alert] ). In plain terms, if an asset was bought with a mix of excluded money and family money, each spouse’s share of the final value should be in proportion to their contributions, not simply giving one back every dollar they put in ( Cozen O’Connor: BC Court of Appeal Clarifies the Appropriate Approach to Tracing Co-Mingled Property [Alert] ). The court noted this method treats excluded and family property equally and is fairer and more predictable ( Cozen O’Connor: BC Court of Appeal Clarifies the Appropriate Approach to Tracing Co-Mingled Property [Alert] ). In Mills, this meant the husband kept the initial value of his inheritance intact as his exclusion, but the growth in value of that property was split 50/50 as family property ( Cozen O’Connor: BC Court of Appeal Clarifies the Appropriate Approach to Tracing Co-Mingled Property [Alert] ). Takeaway: If you’re trying to untangle who gets what from assets that changed form during the marriage (like an inheritance invested into a home), B.C. law now has clearer guidance. You will likely be entitled to your original contribution back, but any increase or profits will be shared, rather than one person claiming the lion’s share simply because the original source was theirs ( Cozen O’Connor: BC Court of Appeal Clarifies the Appropriate Approach to Tracing Co-Mingled Property [Alert] ). This clarity should reduce litigation over complex property tracing, as both lawyers and judges have a Court of Appeal-approved formula to apply.

5. Spousal Support Confirmed for the Long Haul – Zandbergen v. Craig (2024): A notable 2024 Court of Appeal case addressed spousal support duration, especially where one spouse argues they’ve paid “enough.” In Zandbergen v. Craig, the ex-husband had been paying spousal support for several years after a lengthy marriage. He claimed that since he had paid the amount and number of years suggested by the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, he should be allowed to stop payments (B.C. court of appeal upholds order for the husband’s term of paying spousal support to be longer that his actual marriage — MINT LEGAL). (The Guidelines often give a range for how long support might last, frequently tied to the length of the marriage.) He went back to court to end or reduce support, arguing that hitting the guideline timeframe was a “material change in circumstances.” The B.C. Court of Appeal flatly rejected this argument. The court held that just reaching the guideline’s suggested duration is not a material change that automatically entitles a person to review or terminate support (B.C. court of appeal upholds order for the husband’s term of paying spousal support to be longer that his actual marriage — MINT LEGAL). In this case, previous court orders had explicitly said the support was indefinite because the wife was unlikely to ever become self-sufficient due to health and age (B.C. court of appeal upholds order for the husband’s term of paying spousal support to be longer that his actual marriage — MINT LEGAL). In fact, by 2024 the wife’s financial situation had worsened, not improved (B.C. court of appeal upholds order for the husband’s term of paying spousal support to be longer that his actual marriage — MINT LEGAL). The Court of Appeal found no reason to disturb the existing order, which meant the husband’s obligation would extend even longer than the actual marriage lasted (B.C. court of appeal upholds order for the husband’s term of paying spousal support to be longer that his actual marriage — MINT LEGAL). This might sound surprising, but it can happen in cases where, for example, a couple was married for many years and one sacrificed career prospects to raise a family, or has a disability. In practical terms: If you are the support payor, you shouldn’t assume that payments will automatically end after a certain number of years just because of guideline formulas. And if you are the recipient who still genuinely needs support, this case confirms that the courts will look at your ability to become self-supporting (or not) over strict time limits. The Advisory Guidelines are non-binding; meeting their terms doesn’t, by itself, count as changing circumstances (B.C. court of appeal upholds order for the husband’s term of paying spousal support to be longer that his actual marriage — MINT LEGAL). Courts will focus on the real-life situation – if the reasons support was ordered in the first place still exist, the payments usually continue.

Conclusion: Navigating a Changing Divorce Landscape in B.C.

The legal landscape for divorce in British Columbia has evolved in the past year, with new laws and precedents aiming to reflect modern family realities and values. Lawmakers have introduced reforms to make family disputes less painful – recognizing pets as family members, allowing French-language court access, and reviewing rules to better protect children and survivors of abuse. Courts, for their part, have delivered judgments ensuring that violence is factored into custody decisions, that property division is done fairly (not just equally in all cases), and that support obligations are grounded in actual need rather than arbitrary formulas.

For individuals going through a separation or divorce in B.C., it’s more important than ever to stay informed about these changes. For example, understanding that your family dog’s fate won’t be decided like an old piece of furniture can help you approach negotiations more reasonably. Knowing that a history of family violence must be weighed in any parenting plan can empower you to insist on arrangements that keep you and your children safe. Appreciating how courts view property and support issues can lead to more realistic expectations about outcomes – whether it’s realizing you may have to share that increase in your house’s value, or that you might be entitled to support for longer than you thought.

Divorce is never easy, but the recent developments in B.C. divorce law are designed to make the process fairer and more attuned to the well-being of families. If you’re unsure how these laws and decisions apply to your situation, consider reaching out to a family lawyer. They can provide guidance tailored to your case and ensure that you take full advantage of the legal protections and entitlements now available under B.C. law. With the law’s continued modernization (BC Gov News) (BC Gov News), British Columbians can expect a divorce process that, while still challenging, is increasingly focused on equitable and humane solutions for families moving forward.

Sources:

• B.C. Government News Releases on Family Law Changes (2024) (BC Gov News) (BC Gov News)
• B.C. Family Law Act, amendments and public consultation details (BC Gov News) (BC Gov News)
• Bayat v. Mavedati, 2024 BCSC 619 – First case applying new pet custody factors (Gardiner Roberts - Blog) (B.C. Supreme Court Awards Shared Custody of a Dog After Changes to Family Law Act - Animal Legal Defense Fund)
• K.M.N. v. S.Z.M., 2024 BCCA 70 – Court of Appeal on family violence and parenting (BC Court of Appeal Clarifies How Family Violence Impacts the Best Interests of the Child) (Important Court of Appeal Decision! — Rise Women’s Legal Centre)
• Healey v. Healey, 2024 BCCA 68 – Unequal division to prevent unfair result (Navigating Complex Financial Terrain in Family Law: Lessons in Fairness - Amalia Schon Lawyer & Mediator) (Navigating Complex Financial Terrain in Family Law: Lessons in Fairness - Amalia Schon Lawyer & Mediator)
• Mills v. O’Connor, 2025 BCCA 34 – Tracing and dividing excluded property fairly ( Cozen O’Connor: BC Court of Appeal Clarifies the Appropriate Approach to Tracing Co-Mingled Property [Alert] ) ( Cozen O’Connor: BC Court of Appeal Clarifies the Appropriate Approach to Tracing Co-Mingled Property [Alert] )
• Zandbergen v. Craig, 2024 BCCA 278 – Spousal support duration and guidelines (B.C. court of appeal upholds order for the husband’s term of paying spousal support to be longer that his actual marriage — MINT LEGAL)

Modernizing How Wills Are Made: Electronic Wills and Remote Witnessing

Making a will in BC is now more convenient thanks to recent reforms. Electronic wills – wills signed and stored entirely in digital form – have been legally recognized in BC since December 1, 2021 (Make a Will Week - Province of British Columbia). This means a will can exist as an electronic document (for example, a PDF file) signed electronically, without any paper original. All exact copies of a BC electronic will are considered “originals” for probate purposes, making it easier for your executor to submit the will to court (Make a Will Week - Province of British Columbia). You may still choose to print a copy for safekeeping, but the law does not require an ink-signed hardcopy (Make a Will Week - Province of British Columbia). Importantly, BC was the first Canadian province to enable electronic wills and remote witnessing of wills – a change prompted in part by the COVID-19 pandemic and made permanent by legislation. Now, your two witnesses can even witness your will via video conference if needed, as long as certain formalities are followed (such as having an extra signed copy) – removing the old requirement that everyone be physically in the same room.

These innovations make estate planning more accessible, especially for those who are homebound or live in remote areas. However, with new technology comes new responsibility. Practical tip: If you make an electronic will, save it in a stable format (the BC government suggests PDF) and store it in a secure place (or even in multiple places) known to your executor (Make a Will Week - Province of British Columbia). Also, ensure your executors know how to access your digital records. While all formats are legally accepted, a well-organized PDF will can simplify the probate process for your loved ones.

Validity of Wills: Courts Can “Cure” Defective or Informal Documents

BC’s Wills, Estates and Succession Act (WESA) is relatively unique in Canada for giving courts a power to validate a document that doesn’t meet the usual formal requirements of a will. Under WESA’s section 58, the Supreme Court can order that a record or document be treated as a valid will, even if it wasn’t properly signed or witnessed, so long as the court is satisfied it represents the deceased’s true final wishes. Recent cases in 2024 illustrate how this works – and its limits.

One notable 2024 case involved a 101-year-old woman who left behind a handwritten note altering her estate plan. In Walker Estate (Re), 2024 BCSC 792, the executor asked the court to decide if a scrawled note by the deceased in 2016 was meant to revoke a later codicil (will amendment) and revive parts of an earlier will (Handwritten note revokes will amendment, revives original will: BC Supreme Court | Canadian Lawyer). The note stated, “I, [A.W.], revoke any changes to my 2015 will…”, and a forensic analysis confirmed it was written by the deceased (Handwritten note revokes will amendment, revives original will: BC Supreme Court | Canadian Lawyer). The judge found that this informal note did reflect the deceased’s fixed and final testamentary intentions – essentially, it showed she really meant to undo the codicil and revert to the original will (Handwritten note revokes will amendment, revives original will: BC Supreme Court | Canadian Lawyer). As a result, the court used WESA’s curative provision to give legal effect to that note, honoring the true wishes of the will-maker despite the note not being a formal will (Handwritten note revokes will amendment, revives original will: BC Supreme Court | Canadian Lawyer) (Handwritten note revokes will amendment, revives original will: BC Supreme Court | Canadian Lawyer). The court also decided that the estate should cover the legal costs on both sides, since it was the deceased’s unusual actions that made the court application necessary (Handwritten note revokes will amendment, revives original will: BC Supreme Court | Canadian Lawyer).

However, not every informal document will be saved by the court. In another 2024 case, Reid Estate, 2024 BCSC 1932, the court refused to validate a handwritten note found after a woman’s death (November 2024 | Disinherited). Unlike the clear instruction in Walker, the note in Reid Estate was rambling and ambiguous. It was undated, did not clearly identify itself as a will, contained conflicting statements (even about what to do with the person’s remains), and appeared to reflect the deceased’s transient thoughts during a period of illness (November 2024 | Disinherited) (November 2024 | Disinherited). In fact, evidence showed the woman told others she had not yet made a will and was merely considering her options (November 2024 | Disinherited). Because the note did not convincingly represent a deliberate final decision on her estate, the court held it was not a valid will. These contrasting outcomes send a clear message: while BC courts can overlook technical errors to give effect to someone’s last wishes, the person’s intent must be convincingly proven. A casual or unclear note made in passing won’t meet that test.

Practical implications: If you need to change your will, it’s best to do so formally (e.g. via a lawyer-drafted codicil or new will) rather than relying on sticky notes or unsent drafts. The law offers a safety net for genuine mistakes or unforeseeable circumstances, but a properly executed will is still the surest way to carry out your intentions and avoid costly court battles.

Protecting Vulnerable Will-Makers: Capacity and Undue Influence

Another important aspect of will-making is that the will-maker must have testamentary capacity (the mental ability to understand what they are doing) and must be free from undue influence or coercion. Disputes often arise in estates where an elderly or infirm person changed their will or transferred assets under suspicious circumstances. BC courts in 2024 addressed these issues, showing a willingness to intervene in cases of exploitation.

(image) An elderly person signing documents with guidance. In BC, wills can be challenged if there are doubts about the will-maker’s mental capacity or freedom from undue influence. (Handwritten note revokes will amendment, revives original will: BC Supreme Court | Canadian Lawyer) (BC Court Applies Resulting Trust and Undue Influence to Remedy a Predatory Relationship)

One dramatic example did not involve a will, but a predatory relationship that could have gutted an elderly woman’s estate. In King v. Vimhel, 2024 BCSC 1745, a 77-year-old North Vancouver woman (Ms. King) befriended a man 15 years her junior who quickly moved in and gained influence over her (BC Court Applies Resulting Trust and Undue Influence to Remedy a Predatory Relationship) (BC Court Applies Resulting Trust and Undue Influence to Remedy a Predatory Relationship). Over several years, he isolated her from friends and family and even moved her out of her home, all while pressuring her to sign over assets – including adding him as a joint owner of her $1.2 million property (BC Court Applies Resulting Trust and Undue Influence to Remedy a Predatory Relationship) (BC Court Applies Resulting Trust and Undue Influence to Remedy a Predatory Relationship). Eventually, Ms. King escaped and the matter ended up in court. The BC Supreme Court voided the property transfer, declaring that the man held any interest in the home in a resulting trust for Ms. King’s benefit (BC Court Applies Resulting Trust and Undue Influence to Remedy a Predatory Relationship). In plain terms, because he gave no value for the gift and obtained it through wrongdoing, the house was put back into her name alone (BC Court Applies Resulting Trust and Undue Influence to Remedy a Predatory Relationship). The judge also found overwhelming evidence of undue influence – the man had effectively terrorized Ms. King into giving in to his demands (BC Court Applies Resulting Trust and Undue Influence to Remedy a Predatory Relationship). To underline the court’s condemnation of this “predator,” punitive damages of $50,000 were awarded against him (BC Court Applies Resulting Trust and Undue Influence to Remedy a Predatory Relationship). As the court noted, this extreme case required a strong response to send a “clear message that courts will act decisively to rectify egregious misconduct” (BC Court Applies Resulting Trust and Undue Influence to Remedy a Predatory Relationship).

While King v. Vimhel dealt with an inter vivos (during life) transfer, the same issues often arise with wills – for instance, when one child is accused of pressuring an aging parent to rewrite a will in their favor. BC law presumes an adult has capacity to make a will, but that can be rebutted if evidence shows they did not understand what they were doing due to illness, cognitive decline, or delusions. Undue influence, on the other hand, can be subtle and is notoriously difficult to prove – the influencer’s control must be such that the will reflects their wishes, not the will-maker’s. There is no automatic voiding of a will due to mere opportunity or unequal gifts, but courts will closely scrutinize suspicious circumstances. The lesson for families is to be alert to signs of undue influence (such as sudden changes in an elder’s relationships or financial affairs) and, if you’re helping an aging relative with their will, ensure they get independent advice. From a planner’s perspective, keeping detailed notes and even video recordings of a will-signing (to confirm the person was acting freely and understood the will) can provide valuable evidence if the will is later challenged.

Ensuring Fairness for Family Members: Wills Variation Claims

British Columbia is well-known for its wills variation law, which allows spouses and children to challenge a will that does not make adequate provision for them. Under section 60 of WESA, the BC Supreme Court may modify the distribution in a will to ensure that it is just and equitable to the surviving spouse and children. 2024 saw a significant case illustrating how cultural biases or parental preferences can be corrected by the court to achieve fairness.

(image) A visual representation of gender bias. BC’s wills variation law empowered the court in one case to correct a mother’s unequal treatment of her son and daughter (BC Supreme Court orders will variation due to gender bias | Canadian Lawyer) (BC Supreme Court orders will variation due to gender bias | Canadian Lawyer).

In Lam v. Law Estate, 2024 BCSC 1561, a mother’s will left the vast majority of her estate to her son – including the family home and proceeds from other properties – while her daughter received a much smaller share (a half-interest in a single rental property) (BC Supreme Court orders will variation due to gender bias | Canadian Lawyer) (BC Supreme Court orders will variation due to gender bias | Canadian Lawyer). In dollar terms, the son stood to inherit over 82% of the estate (roughly $2.9 million of value), and the daughter about $170,000 (BC Supreme Court orders will variation due to gender bias | Canadian Lawyer). The daughter challenged the will in court, arguing that this gross disparity failed to provide her adequate, just support, and stemmed from the mother’s traditional gender-based preference for a son over a daughter (BC Supreme Court orders will variation due to gender bias | Canadian Lawyer). The son, in response, denied there was discrimination – he claimed his larger share was a reward for managing his mother’s affairs and that his sister had not been treated unfairly (BC Supreme Court orders will variation due to gender bias | Canadian Lawyer).

The court ultimately varied the will to substantially boost the daughter’s inheritance. While the judge did not completely equalize the distribution, she awarded the daughter 85% of the East 18th Avenue property (the real estate the daughter originally co-owned) instead of just 50% (BC Supreme Court orders will variation due to gender bias | Canadian Lawyer). This effectively increased the daughter’s portion of the estate to better reflect what she deserved. The son was not disinherited – the court acknowledged his contributions as a “devoted son” – but his share was reduced to remedy the inequity (BC Supreme Court orders will variation due to gender bias | Canadian Lawyer). The case is a reminder that in BC, a parent’s moral duty to their children can transcend even clear wording in a will. Courts will consider contemporary societal norms and the specific family context: here, a starkly one-sided will influenced by outdated values did not pass muster (BC Supreme Court orders will variation due to gender bias | Canadian Lawyer) (BC Supreme Court orders will variation due to gender bias | Canadian Lawyer).

Practical takeaway: If you plan to leave significantly unequal gifts to your children (or to disinherit a spouse or child entirely), be aware that your wishes might be overturned by a court. It’s wise to document your reasons and ensure they are rational and legitimate (for example, providing more to a disabled child who needs lifelong support could be seen as valid, whereas favoring one child purely due to gender or longstanding favoritism may not hold up). Seeking legal advice on wills variation can help in crafting an estate plan that minimizes the risk of litigation. Conversely, if you are a spouse or child who feels unfairly left out of a will, BC’s wills variation provisions are there to protect you – but strict time limits apply (an action must be started within 180 days of probate), so don’t delay in getting legal advice.

Updates in Trusts and Estate Administration

Developments in 2024 have also touched on trust administration and the handling of estates – from the ability to adjust trust terms, to the duties of executors and even substitute decision-makers managing an incapable person’s affairs. Below we highlight a few key updates and cases:

(image) Family property disputes can arise during estate administration. BC courts in 2024 clarified the limits of what executors or representatives can do with estate assets (BC Supreme Court Strikes down joint tenancy severance in estate dispute | Canadian Lawyer) (BC Supreme Court Strikes down joint tenancy severance in estate dispute | Canadian Lawyer).

• Court reluctance to vary trusts unless truly necessary: In Boys and Girls Club of Greater Victoria Foundation v. British Columbia (AG), 2024 BCSC 442, a charitable foundation asked the court to modify the terms of a trust so that it could sell a piece of land and use the funds for other pressing programs (Mission impractical: Varying charitable trust purposes, impracticality, and the Boys and Girls Club decision | Miller Thomson) (Mission impractical: Varying charitable trust purposes, impracticality, and the Boys and Girls Club decision | Miller Thomson). The land had been donated years ago on the condition it be used for a youth camp, but the charity argued the camp was underused and expensive to maintain. The court, however, refused to grant the requested change under the cy-près doctrine. Justice Marzari held that the threshold for “impracticality” had not been met – while the camp might have been difficult or costly to keep, it wasn’t impossible to continue using it as intended (Mission impractical: Varying charitable trust purposes, impracticality, and the Boys and Girls Club decision | Miller Thomson). The charity’s other funding needs, and the fact that maintaining the trust property was burdensome, did not outweigh the donor’s specific wishes. This decision reinforces that trusts (including those set up in wills) will generally be enforced according to their terms, and deviations are only allowed in exceptional circumstances. For individuals setting up trusts (for example, a trust for a child or a gift to charity in your will), the lesson is to be very clear and perhaps build in some flexibility if you anticipate changes might be needed. For beneficiaries or trustees, it means that courts will hold you to the settlor’s or will-maker’s original intent unless continuing that intent becomes effectively impossible.

• Estate representatives cannot rewrite an incapable person’s estate plan: A noteworthy BC case addressed what a legally appointed guardian (called a committee) can – and cannot – do in managing an elderly person’s property. In Hubert v. Ju, 2024 BCSC 2196 (an estate dispute reported in late 2024), a 105-year-old woman had many years earlier placed her house in joint tenancy with one granddaughter, clearly intending that the granddaughter would inherit the whole property by right of survivorship (BC Supreme Court Strikes down joint tenancy severance in estate dispute | Canadian Lawyer). After the woman lost capacity in 2019, her committee (in this case, her adult son) attempted to sever the joint tenancy in 2021 – which would have converted the ownership to a tenancy-in-common, effectively pulling half the home’s value back into the older woman’s estate to be shared with other family members (BC Supreme Court Strikes down joint tenancy severance in estate dispute | Canadian Lawyer). The son argued this change was to align with his mother’s supposed wish to treat all grandchildren equally. The Supreme Court of BC disagreed and invalidated the severance, restoring the joint tenancy so that the granddaughter became sole owner upon the woman’s death (BC Supreme Court Strikes down joint tenancy severance in estate dispute | Canadian Lawyer) (BC Supreme Court Strikes down joint tenancy severance in estate dispute | Canadian Lawyer). The court found no evidence that the elder ever wanted to undo her estate plan; in fact, she had signed a deed of gift confirming the granddaughter’s survivorship rights years prior (BC Supreme Court Strikes down joint tenancy severance in estate dispute | Canadian Lawyer) (BC Supreme Court Strikes down joint tenancy severance in estate dispute | Canadian Lawyer). The committee’s duty under the Patients Property Act is to act in the best interests of the incapacitated person – not to start redistributing assets based on what the committee personally thinks is “fair” for heirs. In practical terms: if you are managing an incapable parent’s finances, you cannot alter their will or beneficiary designations unless a court orders it. This case upholds the principle that an incapable person’s prior estate planning choices (like placing assets in joint tenancy, naming beneficiaries, etc.) should be respected unless maintaining them would actually harm the person’s interests during their lifetime.

• Empowering beneficiaries to protect an estate: When an executor or fellow beneficiary is behaving improperly, the law provides tools to step in. An interesting 2024 decision, Chappell v. Chappell, 2024 BCSC 268, showed the court allowing a beneficiary to sue on behalf of an estate to recover assets. In that family, after the father died, one daughter (Brenda) had taken control of certain significant assets (real estate, bank accounts, retirement funds) either just before or just after his death, claiming them for herself (BC Supreme Court greenlights son's legal action to protect father's estate value in family dispute | Canadian Lawyer) (BC Supreme Court greenlights son's legal action to protect father's estate value in family dispute | Canadian Lawyer). Her brother Gerald believed those assets rightly belonged in their father’s estate to be divided equally under the will (BC Supreme Court greenlights son's legal action to protect father's estate value in family dispute | Canadian Lawyer). Since all three siblings were co-executors and beneficiaries, Gerald needed the court’s permission (leave) to commence an action in the estate’s name (essentially suing his sister to recover the property for the estate). The court reviewed the situation and granted him permission to proceed (BC Supreme Court greenlights son's legal action to protect father's estate value in family dispute | Canadian Lawyer) (BC Supreme Court greenlights son's legal action to protect father's estate value in family dispute | Canadian Lawyer). It found that Gerald’s claims were arguable – there was evidence suggesting, among other things, a possible resulting trust (i.e. that Brenda was holding assets that still really belonged to the father’s estate) and questions about the father’s mental capacity when certain transfers were made (BC Supreme Court greenlights son's legal action to protect father's estate value in family dispute | Canadian Lawyer). The judge was also satisfied that Gerald was acting in good faith for the benefit of the estate and other beneficiaries, not out of malice (BC Supreme Court greenlights son's legal action to protect father's estate value in family dispute | Canadian Lawyer). This case illustrates that if an executor or family member is wrongly diverting assets, the court can authorize another interested party to step into the executor’s shoes and seek justice. It’s a reminder that executors must act loyally and transparently; if they don’t, beneficiaries have recourse through the courts.

• Streamlining probate and estate procedures: On the procedural side, BC has made it easier to deal with estate administration in some respects. Effective September 2024, the Supreme Court of BC updated its rules to allow affidavits to be sworn remotely by video on a permanent basis ( CBA British Columbia - NP 20: Affidavits for Use in Court Proceedings Rescinded Effective September 9, 2024 ). This means executors applying for probate can swear the necessary documents (such as the affidavit of the executor) via videoconference with a lawyer or commissioner, rather than needing to attend in person ( CBA British Columbia - NP 20: Affidavits for Use in Court Proceedings Rescinded Effective September 9, 2024 ). This change, initially an emergency COVID measure, is now a lasting convenience that saves time – especially useful if an executor lives far from BC or has mobility issues. Additionally, the probate court continues to accept electronic copies of wills (including electronic wills, as noted above) with a special form attesting it is a true copy of the original. Many filings can be done electronically through BC’s Court Services Online system. All these updates aim to reduce delays and make the probate process more accessible. Still, the paperwork and formalities can be daunting – executors should consider getting legal guidance to ensure all requirements are met and to avoid rejection of the application.

Conclusion: Staying Informed and Prepared

The past year or two have underscored that change is constant in the realm of wills and estates. BC has embraced technology (from electronic wills to virtual affidavits) to modernize estate planning and administration. At the same time, age-old principles – like the need for clear intention, the prohibition on undue influence, and the duty to provide for one’s family – continue to be vigorously enforced by our courts, sometimes in new ways. For individuals and families, the key message is to stay informed and plan ahead. Make sure your estate plan reflects current law and your current wishes. If you’re entering your senior years or helping an elderly relative, be alert to potential financial abuse or pressure from others. And if you’re dealing with the estate of a loved one who has passed, be aware of your rights – whether it’s the right to a fair share as a spouse or child, or the ability to challenge suspicious transactions that depleted the estate.

Estate disputes can be emotionally and financially draining. Fortunately, the recent developments we’ve discussed also offer reassurance: the legal system has robust tools to uphold fairness and true intent, from validating the will you meant to make, to correcting injustices in a will, to clawing back assets from those who obtained them improperly. By understanding these tools and developments, you can better protect your legacy and your loved ones.

If you have questions about how these recent changes in BC’s wills and estates law might affect your personal situation – for example, how to properly execute an electronic will, whether a will can be challenged, or what an executor’s responsibilities are – feel free to reach out to our Wills & Estates team. We are here to help you navigate these evolving laws and ensure your estate plan provides peace of mind for you and your family.

Sources:

• Wills, Estates and Succession Act (WESA), SBC 2009 c.13 (as amended) – provisions on electronic wills, will variation (s.60), and curing deficiencies (s.58).
• Walker Estate (Re), 2024 BCSC 792 – informal handwritten note accepted as a will (Handwritten note revokes will amendment, revives original will: BC Supreme Court | Canadian Lawyer) (Handwritten note revokes will amendment, revives original will: BC Supreme Court | Canadian Lawyer).
• Reid Estate, 2024 BCSC 1932 – informal note refused as a will (November 2024 | Disinherited) (November 2024 | Disinherited).
• King v. Vimhel, 2024 BCSC 1745 – predatory undue influence case, transfer set aside (BC Court Applies Resulting Trust and Undue Influence to Remedy a Predatory Relationship) (BC Court Applies Resulting Trust and Undue Influence to Remedy a Predatory Relationship).
• Lam v. Law Estate, 2024 BCSC 1561 – will varied for gender-biased disparity (BC Supreme Court orders will variation due to gender bias | Canadian Lawyer) (BC Supreme Court orders will variation due to gender bias | Canadian Lawyer).
• Hubert v. Ju, 2024 BCSC 2196 – joint tenancy severance by committee invalidated (BC Supreme Court Strikes down joint tenancy severance in estate dispute | Canadian Lawyer) (BC Supreme Court Strikes down joint tenancy severance in estate dispute | Canadian Lawyer).
• Chappell v. Chappell, 2024 BCSC 268 – leave granted to commence estate proceeding (BC Supreme Court greenlights son's legal action to protect father's estate value in family dispute | Canadian Lawyer) (BC Supreme Court greenlights son's legal action to protect father's estate value in family dispute | Canadian Lawyer).
• Boys and Girls Club of G.V. Foundation v. BC (AG), 2024 BCSC 442 – charitable trust cy-près application denied (Mission impractical: Varying charitable trust purposes, impracticality, and the Boys and Girls Club decision | Miller Thomson).
• BC Ministry of Attorney General, Make a Will Week 2024 – public information on electronic wills in BC (Make a Will Week - Province of British Columbia) (Make a Will Week - Province of British Columbia).
• BC Supreme Court Civil Rules (Rule 22-2(6.1)) – allowing affidavits by video conference (in force Sept 9, 2024) ( CBA British Columbia - NP 20: Affidavits for Use in Court Proceedings Rescinded Effective September 9, 2024 ).