Understanding Estate Obligations for Committees in B.C. Incapacity Cases

When someone becomes incapable of managing their own affairs, a court in British Columbia may appoint a committee under the Patients Property Act, RSBC 1996, c 349. This fiduciary role is often misunderstood — particularly when it is compared to the duties of executors or trustees who have Power of Attorney.

While a trustee or executor is expected to manage or distribute an estate with a focus on maximizing value for beneficiaries, a committee operates under a very different standard. Their responsibility is to the incapable person alone, and any management of the patient’s estate is generally undertaken only insofar as it benefits the patient. The committee’s relationship to the estate is therefore indirect: it exists only through the lens of the patient’s best interests, not out of any obligation to grow the estate for heirs.

Section 18: A Duty to the Patient First and Foremost

Section 18(1) of the Patients Property Act says:

“A committee must exercise the committee’s powers for the benefit of the patient and the patient’s family, having regard to the nature and value of the property of the patient and the circumstances and needs of the patient and the patient’s family.”

At first glance, this provision might suggest a balancing act between the interests of the patient and their broader family. But British Columbia courts have consistently interpreted the language of section 18 in a way that centres the incapable person, not their heirs. The reference to “the patient’s family” does not impose a duty to future beneficiaries, nor does it require the committee to preserve or enhance the value of the estate for eventual distribution.

Instead, the “family” language has been treated as a recognition that some decisions may have collateral benefits for family members — such as supporting a dependent child or spouse — but only when those benefits align with the patient’s own needs and welfare. Committees are fiduciaries to the patient, not fiduciaries of the estate, and not agents of the family.

This interpretation was affirmed in British Columbia (Public Trustee) v. Bradley Estate, 2000 BCCA 78. In that case, the Court of Appeal rejected a proposal to restructure a patient’s estate for tax purposes in a way that would benefit his children after death. Even though the plan would have saved on U.S. estate taxes and arguably preserved more wealth, it was found to be incompatible with the committee’s duty because it would materially reduce the estate during the patient’s lifetime without delivering any personal benefit to him. The court held that committees may only reduce the estate if doing so genuinely serves the patient’s welfare. There is no authority to take financial risks or restructure the estate solely to favour eventual beneficiaries (paras 15–20).

This principle was reaffirmed — and clarified — in Uhlving Estate v. Public Guardian and Trustee, 2024 BCCA 397. There, the Public Guardian and Trustee declined to pursue a WESA wills variation claim on behalf of an incapable widow, even though a successful claim would have increased the size of her estate for her adult children. The court upheld this decision, emphasizing that the committee’s statutory duty does not authorize litigation that exposes the patient’s assets to risk unless the litigation is directly linked to improving the patient’s own financial position or care. Justice Grauer wrote:

“A statute aimed at the protection of vulnerable persons… cannot authorize a committee to act in a way that would jeopardize the patient’s continued care and maintenance when the only consequence would be to materially benefit a legally unrelated third party.” (Uhlving, at para 54)

While a committee must be mindful of the family’s needs in situations where the patient’s support obligations persist — for example, to a dependent spouse or child — these are exceptions grounded in the patient’s own obligations and well-being. The core principle remains: the estate is a resource for the patient, not an inheritance to be grown for others.

By contrast, an executor or trustee is specifically tasked with managing and preserving an estate for the benefit of named beneficiaries or classes of heirs. Their role includes identifying tax efficiencies, recovering debts owed to the estate, and maximizing value for distribution. A committee, however, cannot simply do what’s best for the estate. They must ask: does this decision benefit the patient, directly and meaningfully, during their lifetime? If the answer is no, the action should likely not be taken — even if the patient’s family might stand to gain.

What If There’s Truly No Impact on the Patient?

The core legal position is this: committees are not neutral stewards of the estate. Their powers are exercised through the prism of the patient’s benefit — not for the estate’s general preservation, and certainly not to increase the share left to others.

So, even where a decision is costless or low-risk (e.g., pursuing a simple claim, amending a will, or changing asset structure), courts have been reluctant to allow committees to act purely to benefit others, unless:

• The patient gains some tangible or intangible benefit (e.g., peace of mind, maintaining long-standing family expectations, or avoiding conflict);
• The action aligns with the patient’s known wishes, expressed prior to incapacity;
• There is no financial, reputational, or practical risk to the patient or their care; and
• The action is objectively reasonable under the standard of a “prudent person of business.”

But even under those circumstances, caution prevails. If there is a chance the decision could be interpreted as self-dealing or as exceeding the scope of authority, courts will tend to side with inaction. That is, committees should be risk-averse, even inactionist, when the benefit is external and the internal justification is weak.

Conclusion: Duty First, Legacy Second

Committees are not custodians of inheritance. Their duty is not to secure windfalls for beneficiaries, but to make careful, prudent decisions that protect the welfare of the patient during their lifetime. While trustees and executors look to the future — preserving and maximizing assets for others — committees look primarily to the present, with one question in mind: What serves the best interests of the person I am appointed to protect?

If you have been appointed as a committee, or are navigating questions about estate planning and incapacity, our team can help you understand your legal obligations and protect both your loved one’s interests and your own.

Contact Heath Law today. or read more of our blog articles about Trusts and Estate Law.