When a loved one passes away, we rely on their will to provide certainty and finality regarding the distribution of property.

Historically, legal systems required strict compliance with formalities for a will to be considered valid, thereby ensuring the necessary certainty.

However, modern estate law in British Columbia includes a significant curative power under section 58 of the Wills, Estates, and Succession Act (WESA). This power allows the court to order that a “record, document, or writing” be fully effective as a will, or an alteration or revocation of a will, if it determines that the record represents the deceased’s testamentary intentions. This “record” can include text messages and emails.

This raises a crucial question about trust and certainty in estate planning: can an informal message expressing a desire to change a will change the will? The British Columbia Court of Appeal considered this question recently in Paige v. Noel, 2025 BCCA 358

The Core Dispute: Messages vs. Formal Will

The appeal involved the estate of Barbara Ann Kissel, who died on January 7, 2023. Her 2014 will named her goddaughter, Jennifer Elise Paige (the Appellant), and Adrian Joseph Kissel (a Respondent), as equal residual beneficiaries.

After a conflict developed between the deceased and Jennifer Paige, the deceased sent a series of electronic messages (the “Messages”) to her executor, Michelle Dianne Noel, in October 2022. These Messages outlined her intent to “redo” her will and said, “Jennifer is out”.

Crucially, the subsequent email sent on October 15, 2022, detailed her meeting with a notary and her decision not to destroy her current will immediately, explicitly stating: “the current will that you have will stand until I get a new one.” She passed away months later without executing a new will.

The Chambers Judge’s Finding

The chambers judge, applying the curative power found in section 58 of WESA, concluded that the Messages represented the deceased’s “fixed and final intention” to remove Jennifer Paige as a beneficiary. The judge placed significant weight on the deceased’s consistent, stated intention to remove Jennifer, even though she was taking steps to accomplish this via a notary. The judge reasoned that the statement that the current will would stand was simply to prevent the estate from being tied up in probate should the deceased die intestate before the new will was completed. Consequently, the judge ordered the Messages to be fully effective to alter the 2014 will.

The BCCA Rejects Informal Revocation

The BCCA allowed the appeal, finding that the chambers judge erred in law regarding the interpretation and application of s. 58 of WESA.

The Court focused on the necessity for a “deliberate or fixed and final expression of intention as to the disposal of property on death”. Madam Justice Fisher, writing for the Court, explained that under s. 58, this standard means that the deceased must have intended the record itself—in this case, the text and email communications—to be legally operative as a revocation or alteration.

The court cautioned that while electronic documents such as texts and emails can technically be “records” under s. 58(1), informal communications that are simply a recording of a conversation are unlikely to meet the required threshold unless the content demonstrates a fixed and final intention to effect a testamentary disposition.

The court found the chambers judge made a palpable and overriding error in concluding the Messages represented a fixed and final alteration, particularly because the deceased herself clearly expressed a conditional intention:

1. The deceased stated she had an appointment to “redo my will”.

2. She expressly declared that the “current will… will stand until I get a new one”.

The BCCA emphasized that the deceased intended to effect the alteration by making a new will, and until that new will was made, her existing will was to remain operative. The fact that the Messages contemplated the preparation of a formal new will meant they were not intended to be the alteration themselves.

In contrast to a case where an informal document was admitted because the deceased had never made a will and the extrinsic evidence supported the document’s finality, the deceased here had an operative will and was aware of the formalities required to change it.

The Takeaway

The decision reaffirms the high bar for using section 58 of WESA to validate informal documents, particularly when those documents express an intention to later create a formal will. While WESA provides a curative power to overcome technical non-compliance, that power cannot transform a record of a conversation or future intent into a legally binding testamentary document unless the deceased intended the communication itself to operate as the alteration or revocation.

The case serves as a crucial reminder: A record must not only express a desire to dispose of property differently, but it must also be intended by the deceased to operate as the final testamentary act at that material time, like an anchor securing a boat’s fixed position, rather than merely a navigational note detailing where the boat intends to go next.

Executors should initiate conversations promptly after the passing of the deceased, providing clear information about the probate process, including steps, timelines, potential delays, and the roles involved.

Written communication, such as formal letters or emails, not only ensures that details are documented but also provides beneficiaries with a reference point. An executor is obligated to keep beneficiaries “reasonably” informed throughout the estate administration process and to answer inquiries made by beneficiaries in a timely manner. What is reasonable depends on the circumstances and estate administration can take months or years to complete.

If the executor is not communicating with beneficiaries and delay is becoming an issue, a court application can be brought to compel the executor to complete the administration of the estate and distribute the estate’s assets.

Beneficiaries should be provided with enough information to ensure the estate administration process is progressing and that the estate is being administered in accordance with the terms of the Will. At the start of the process, the executor must provide notice to each person with an interest in the estate. This notice should indicate what the beneficiary is entitled to pursuant to the terms of the Will.

Delivery may be by personal delivery, ordinary mail, email, or other electronic means to the address provided by the person for that purpose. There is no requirement to prove receipt of a notice that has been mailed.

However, before mailing, the executor must make reasonable efforts to verify that the address is current, even when the Will-maker has long been out of touch, and if it is not, make an effort to trace the current address.

As an executor, there are many potential legal disputes or claims that may arise. One common challenge lies in disputes concerning the validity of the Will, where allegations of undue influence or lack of mental capacity can lead to litigation. Other issues with the Will can include problems with formalities, as well as unclear provisions in the Will.

In BC, an issue that can arise is Wills variation claims by the spouse or children of the deceased. The definition of “child” in this context includes adult children.

Under section 60 of the British Columbia Wills Estates and Succession Act, a spouse or child may commence a proceeding to vary a Will that does not adequately provide for the spouse or child’s proper maintenance and support.

In this situation, the court may order the provision be made that it thinks is “adequate, just and equitable” in the circumstances. If a Wills variation proceeding is commenced, a distribution of the estate may only occur with the consent of the court.

One of the duties of the executor is to pay any debts and liabilities of the estate, which includes paying taxes. As executor, you have a duty to pay all legitimate debts of the estate before making a distribution to beneficiaries.

According to section 142(2) of the British Columbia Wills Estates and Succession Act (“WESA”) the executor must account to the creditors as well as beneficiaries. The beneficiaries will receive the residue after these debts and taxes have been paid. According to section 159(2) of the Income Tax Act, an executor must also obtain a clearance certificate from the Minister before making a distribution.

If the assets are not sufficient to pay all the debts and the gifts under the Will, the assets must be liquidated to pay the debts in an order specified by WESA. As a note, benefit plans that have designated beneficiaries pay benefits directly to those beneficiaries, and creditors of the estate have no access to payments made from benefit plans: WESA, s. 95.

An executor is not liable for the debts of the estate, but if the executor distributes assets before the debts are paid, then he or she could be held accountable for the amount they distributed. Also, according to WESA, s. 53(3), if the Will leaves a gift to a creditor, that gift is not necessarily a payment by the Will-maker on the debt, unless the Will clearly says that it is. In other words, a creditor might take a gift and still pursue a debt.

The deceased’s Will is often the primary source of information about beneficiaries. Personal records such as address books and digital contacts offer potential leads, as well as online searches and social media platforms.

Financial institutions can also provide clues, as beneficiaries are often linked to accounts and investments. Furthermore, the beneficiaries’ family and friends may possess valuable insights into the whereabouts of the beneficiary. Other practical steps include checking their last known address and talking to their neighbours, checking with their last known employer, and asking at places where they are known to have contacts (for example, clubs and social organizations).

If, after taking these steps, you still can’t find the beneficiary, you can hire someone to locate a person’s whereabouts. This is known as a trace, and there are several companies in BC that offer tracing services. Whichever company you choose to work with, they will want as much information about the beneficiary as you can provide. However, if you are still unsuccessful, you may need to apply to court for an order either dispensing with notice or notifying the missing beneficiary in a different way such