Wills Variation Claims (16:VII): Difference between revisions
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
'''NOTE:''' See ''Gosbjorn v Hadley'', 2008 BCSC 219 for a list of factors used by the courts to determine if there is a marriage-like relationship. More recently, see the discussion in ''Connor Estate'', 2017 BCSC 978. | '''NOTE:''' See ''Gosbjorn v Hadley'', 2008 BCSC 219 for a list of factors used by the courts to determine if there is a marriage-like relationship. More recently, see the discussion in ''Connor Estate'', 2017 BCSC 978. | ||
In ''Boughton v Widner Estate'', 2021 BCSC 325, the deceased had both a legal wife as well as a common law partner at the time of his death. The court confirmed that it is possible to have two spouses who concurrently meet the definition of a spouse under ''WESA'' section 2. The deceased’s estate was split equally between the two spouses. | :::In ''Boughton v Widner Estate'', 2021 BCSC 325, the deceased had both a legal wife as well as a common law partner at the time of his death. The court confirmed that it is possible to have two spouses who concurrently meet the definition of a spouse under ''WESA'' section 2. The deceased’s estate was split equally between the two spouses. | ||
In ''BH v JH'', 2015 BCSC 1551, the BC Supreme Court varied the husband’s will so that the wife, who was separated from but who had not divorced the husband, was entitled to part of the husband’s estate. This significantly deviated from what the wife would have received if they had divorced immediately before the husband’s death. | :::In ''BH v JH'', 2015 BCSC 1551, the BC Supreme Court varied the husband’s will so that the wife, who was separated from but who had not divorced the husband, was entitled to part of the husband’s estate. This significantly deviated from what the wife would have received if they had divorced immediately before the husband’s death. | ||
