In Barbieri v. White, 2025 BCCA 253 (CanLII), the British Columbia Court of Appeal (“BCA”) considered the removal of Ricardo Barbieri (“Rick”) as executor of his late mother’s estate. His sister, Teresa White, had made allegations of self-dealing and preferential treatment by Rick. Rick and Teresa had been co-executors of the estate. Teresa wanted Rick removed and a professional trustee appointed. Although the Will gave Rick as executor broad discretion over asset distribution, Rick transferred valuable estate properties to a company he controlled and to their brother, Steven. This was all done without notifying or obtaining consent from Teresa. At trial, the judge found that Rick’s conduct amounted to inappropriate self-dealing, particularly because Rick paid below market value for the properties and concealed the transactions. The trial judge concluded that Rick acted in his own interest rather than in the interest of all beneficiaries. Rick was ordered to be removed as executor, and a trust company (“Solus”) appointed as administrator.
On appeal, Rick argued that the property transfers were proper transfers of assets as per the Will. Rick also argued that the trial judge acted unfairly by characterizing the transactions as purchases and not transfers. The BCA rejected Rick’s arguments, finding that the transactions were sales and that the characterization was properly supported by the evidence, including Rick’s own affidavits. The BCA also held that even if the transfers were distributions, Rick’s failure to provide notice, obtain proper valuations, or conduct independent accounting demonstrated a lack of transparency and fairness; thereby justifying his removal as trustee. The BCA upheld the trial judge’s findings that Rick favoured himself and Steven, jeopardized estate assets, and failed to meet his fiduciary obligations.
However, the Court of Appeal found merit in one aspect of the appeal. The BCA considered whether the appointment of Solus as “administrator pending litigation” was procedurally correct under section 103 of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act (WESA). Since no challenge to the Will’s validity or application to revoke a representation grant was ongoing, and because Solus had only consented to a limited appointment, the Court held that the trial court should reconsider the scope of Solus’s role. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed solely on this narrow ground, and the matter was remitted for further determination of Solus’s proper appointment.
If you are dealing with concerns about executor conduct or the administration of an estate, speaking with a lawyer can help you assess your options. The experienced Toronto estate litigation lawyers at Devry Smith Frank LLP act for trustees and beneficiaries in a range of estate disputes. Call us at 416-449-1400 or contact us online to arrange a consultation.
Leave a Reply