Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiff lacked legal authority under WESA to sue on behalf of her late father’s estate.

• Claims for express, resulting, and constructive trust were pled without sufficient material facts.

• The right of survivorship in joint tenancy transferred full ownership of the residence to the surviving spouse.

• Vague oral promises and assertions of intention did not satisfy the legal requirements for creating a trust.

• Plaintiff’s proposed amendments repeated deficiencies and did not cure defects in pleadings.

• Defendant successfully applied to strike the claim and obtained release of trust funds with costs awarded.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background
The dispute arose after the death of Alfred Fredrich Arnold Schaefer and his spouse, Erna Schaefer, concerning ownership and entitlement to a family residence in New Westminster, British Columbia. Monica Eleanora O’Hara, the biological daughter of Mr. Schaefer, brought a claim both personally and on behalf of her father’s estate, alleging entitlement to the property or its proceeds. Mr. and Mrs. Schaefer purchased the family home in 1989 as joint tenants. When Mr. Schaefer died in 2001, ownership automatically transferred to Mrs. Schaefer by right of survivorship. Mrs. Schaefer lived in the residence until her death in 2023. Her will excluded Mr. Schaefer’s children, including Ms. O’Hara, from any share in her estate. The residence was later sold, and the sale proceeds were held in trust pending resolution of the case.

The plaintiff’s claims
Ms. O’Hara alleged that her father and stepmother had promised she would share in the estate and that the family residence was held in trust for her benefit. She advanced claims under three legal theories: express trust, resulting trust, and constructive trust. She also pleaded breach of contract and damages for loss and injury but did not provide factual particulars. The defendant estate applied to strike the claim, arguing that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and sought release of the trust funds.

The court’s analysis
The court reviewed the plaintiff’s pleadings and determined that the claims were legally insufficient. With respect to the express trust claim, the court found no pleaded facts showing clear intention or steps taken by Mrs. Schaefer to create such a trust. For the resulting trust, the court emphasized that joint tenancy carried with it a right of survivorship, which vested full ownership in Mrs. Schaefer upon Mr. Schaefer’s death, leaving no beneficial interest for Ms. O’Hara. The constructive trust argument also failed because the pleadings lacked facts establishing unjust enrichment, deprivation, or absence of a juristic reason. The court further noted that Ms. O’Hara lacked standing to sue on behalf of her father’s estate under the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, as she was not a personal representative and had not been authorized under section 151.

Outcome of the case
The court concluded that the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and that there was no reasonable prospect of success. The plaintiff’s proposed amendments did not remedy these defects and were dismissed. The entire claim was struck without leave to amend. The court granted the defendant’s application to release the proceeds of the family residence held in trust and ordered Ms. O’Hara to pay the defendant’s costs assessed under Appendix B, Scale B of the Supreme Court Civil Rules. The case was therefore resolved fully in favor of the defendant estate.