Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Executor of a deceased estate sued the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) for negligence.

• The dispute centered on PGT’s decision not to bring a will variation claim on behalf of an incapable adult.

• Plaintiff argued the deceased was legally entitled to a greater share of his late spouse’s estate.

• PGT followed its internal policy and declined to litigate to avoid financial harm to the deceased.

• The court found the PGT owed no duty to the deceased’s heirs when acting in the deceased’s best interest.

• Judgment was entered in favor of the PGT with entitlement to costs, but no damages were awarded.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background of the dispute

Peggy Sexsmith, acting as executor of her father’s estate, filed a negligence action against the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) of British Columbia. Her father, Idar Henry Uhlving, had become incapable in his later years and was under the legal guardianship (committee) of the PGT. The core dispute arose after Mr. Uhlving’s wife, Lorraine Linda Wright, passed away in 2018. Her will placed the residue of her estate in trust for Mr. Uhlving’s benefit during his lifetime, with the remainder to be distributed to two charities upon his death.

Ms. Sexsmith contended that the PGT failed in its duty by not initiating a wills variation claim under British Columbia’s Wills, Estates and Succession Act (WESA), which she argued could have resulted in Mr. Uhlving receiving a greater outright share of the estate. She claimed that had the PGT brought such a claim, her father’s estate—and by extension, his heirs—would have been better off.

Procedural history and legal framing

Initially, Ms. Sexsmith filed a separate wills variation claim herself, but this was dismissed as statute-barred. She then pursued a new claim in negligence, asserting that the PGT's failure to act deprived her father of his legal entitlement and caused financial loss to his estate. The PGT applied for summary judgment under Rule 9-7 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, arguing that the decision not to vary the will was reasonable, prudent, and in accordance with its legal obligations.

The court’s legal analysis

Justice Douglas framed the issue as whether the PGT, acting as committee for Mr. Uhlving, breached the applicable standard of care by not bringing a wills variation claim. He noted that the applicable standard is that of an ordinarily prudent person managing another’s affairs. Importantly, the law requires the PGT to act in the best interests of the patient—in this case, Mr. Uhlving—not the patient’s heirs.

The court accepted the PGT’s evidence that pursuing litigation would likely have been costly and potentially detrimental to Mr. Uhlving, particularly since the will already made significant provision for him through a lifetime trust. Moreover, Ms. Sexsmith had no standing under WESA to vary the will, as she was neither a child nor a spouse of Ms. Wright. The PGT determined, correctly in the court’s view, that litigation would bring no benefit to Mr. Uhlving and could harm his financial well-being by reducing the trust assets through legal costs.

Decision and outcome

Justice Douglas held that the PGT had not breached its duty of care and had acted within its statutory role and internal policy. The court emphasized that the PGT’s fiduciary obligations are owed to the incapable person and not to family members with future or contingent interests.

The negligence claim was therefore dismissed in full. No damages were awarded. The court stated that the PGT is entitled to its legal costs, although no specific amount was set out in the decision. The result underscores the protective legal framework governing committeeships and the careful scrutiny applied to litigation decisions made on behalf of incapable adults.