Gill v. Gill Estate

2024 BCSC 2384 Gill v. Gill Estate

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Gill v. Gill Estate, 2024 BCSC 2384 Date: 20241231 Docket: S214521 Registry: Vancouver Between: Harjit Singh Gill Plaintiff And Estate of Swinder Singh Gill, Chelsea Kaur Gill, Monica Kaur Gill, Soliman Singh Gill, Rani Kulvinder Gill, and Rai and Company Defendants Before: The Honourable Madam Justice W.A. Baker Reasons for Judgment The Plaintiff, appearing in person: H. Gill Counsel for Chelsea Gill, Monica Gill and Soliman Gill: K.R. Campbell Counsel for Rani Gill: J.S. Virk Counsel for Rai and Company: T. Dalziel Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C. April 11 and 12, 2024 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. December 31, 2024 Introduction [1] In this action, Harjit Singh Gill seeks to set aside certain conveyances made by his father, Swinder Gill, during his lifetime; set aside a 2013 will made by Swinder Gill, in which Swinder Gill made gifts to his grandchildren; to vary a will made in 2020; and to remove and replace the executor, Rani Gill. [2] On February 28 and 29, 2024 I heard the plaintiff's application to obtain much of the relief which is set out in his notice of civil claim. [3] The three sets of defendants have now filed applications for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 9-7 and, in the case of the Estate of Swinder Gill, an application to strike the claims against the estate and the executor pursuant

to Rule 9-5. [4] Except for the law firm of Rai and Company, the people involved in this dispute are family members and share the same surname. For ease of understanding, I will refer to them in these reasons by their first names. The people are: Swinder Singh Gill, the deceased; Harjit Singh Gill, the son of Swinder; Rani Kulvinder Gill, the former wife of Harjit and the executor of the estate of Swinder; Chelsea Kaur Gill, a daughter of Harjit and Rani and an alternate executor of the estate of Swinder; Monica Kaur Gill, a daughter of Harjit and Rani; and Soliman Singh Gill, a son of Harjit and Rani. [5] I set out the background to the dispute in my oral reasons dated February 29, 2024, which I will repeat here: Background [3] The plaintiff and his former wife, Rani Gill, separated in or around 2008 and divorced in or around 2009. From approximately 2010 to 2020, the plaintiff did not see or hear from his children in any meaningful way. While the children are now adults, the plaintiff alleges that his children, and in particular his daughter Chelsea, suffered from parental alienation syndrome as a result of the influence of their mother. The plaintiff alleges that Chelsea, as a result of the alleged parental alienation syndrome, exercised dominance over Swinder Gill and used undue influence to cause Swinder Gill to transfer certain assets to her and her siblings. [4] After

the parties' separation and divorce, Ms. Gill and the children remained close to the plaintiff's mother and father. The grandparents played a very important role in the children's lives. All three children provided affidavits attesting to the very close relationship they had with their grandparents, with whom they spent mornings and after school most school days. Rani Gill similarly attested to the close relationship her children had with their grandparents. Three friends of Swinder Gill provided affidavits attesting to the close relationship they observed between Mr. Swinder Gill and his grandchildren. [5] Swinder Gill's wife died in January 2013. The plaintiff was notified of her death but did not attend her funeral. All of the children attested to the fact that Swinder Gill was very upset that the plaintiff did not attend his mother's funeral. [6] After his wife's death in 2013, Swinder Gill met with his grandchildren and told them he wanted to open a joint bank account with them. At that time, Chelsea Gill was 19, Monica Gill was 17, and Soliman Gill was 14. Chelsea understood that it was Swinder Gill's intention to provide for their future through this bank account because the plaintiff had left them with nothing. [7] In March 2013, a bank account was opened at VanCity, and the account opening form exhibited to Chelsea Gill's affidavit clearly shows all four parties

opening the joint account on March 15, 2013. The account had a right of survivorship. On August 7, 2013, Swinder Gill executed a will in which he left the contents of the VanCity account to the three grandchildren, and the residue of his estate to Soliman Gill. The will was clear that he did not wish to gift any part of his estate to any of his three children. [8] None of the three grandchildren learned about the will until 2019 or 2020. Swinder Gill named Rani Gill, the ex‑wife of his son, as his executor, and Chelsea Gill as the alternate executor. Swinder Gill made the appointment with a solicitor and attended the solicitor on his own to have the will prepared. The solicitor provided an affidavit outlining his recollection of his meeting with Swinder Gill, who he says was straightforward about his desire to not include his children in his will and to leave his estate to his grandchildren. The solicitor was confident in Swinder Gill's capacity to make the will and attested that Swinder Gill was making the will voluntarily with no pressure or influence from anyone. [9] Chelsea Gill stated in her affidavit that she attended on Swinder Gill almost daily and found him to be a competent, independent man. While he had a kidney transplant in the 1980s and took medication in relation to that, his health was generally good, and he remained physically fit and active until the last few

years of his life. [10] In 2013, Swinder Gill had no health complaints and was generally healthy other than the medication he required for his kidneys. In approximately 2016 or 2017, Swinder Gill began to get weaker and required assistance with meal preparation and bathing but was able to live generally independently in his home. Chelsea Gill and her siblings and their mother began to provide Swinder Gill with additional assistance. By 2017, they had arranged care aides for him. None of the grandchildren or Rani Gill observed any mental deficiencies with Swinder Gill during this time. [11] In July of 2019, Swinder Gill became sick and was admitted to Surrey Memorial Hospital. He did not suffer from any mental incapacity at that time. He was moved into a care home in December 2019 and continued to be of sound mind. In October 2019, Chelsea was speaking with her grandfather, who told her he wanted to put his affairs in order before he went into the care home. This was the first time Chelsea Gill learned of the 2013 will. [12] Swinder Gill told Chelsea Gill that he wanted his home to go to all three grandchildren, not just Soliman, as was the case under the 2013 will. He told Chelsea Gill he wanted to transfer the house to them at that time. Chelsea told him she did not want to receive the house, as she was already a co‑owner of another property. The solicitor for Swinder Gill

stated in his affidavit that Swinder Gill called him in the fall of 2019 and asked him to add the grandchildren as joint tenants to his house and to grant Chelsea Gill a power of attorney. [13] After the solicitor learned that Chelsea did not want to go on title to the house, the solicitor confirmed with Mr. Swinder Gill his instructions to add Monica Gill and Soliman Gill to the title of the house. The solicitor met alone with Swinder Gill at the hospital. The solicitor satisfied himself that Swinder Gill had no problems with his mental capacity and understood the concepts of a right of survivorship and resulting trust, and considerations under the Fraudulent Conveyance Act. [14] The solicitor confirmed that Swinder Gill wanted to gift the property to Soliman Gill and Monica Gill without creating a resulting trust and wanted them to have full ownership of the property on his death. The solicitor also confirmed with Mr. Swinder Gill that he was not transferring the property for a fraudulent purpose. The solicitor discussed the matter thoroughly with Swinder Gill and was sure that there were no concerns of any duress, coercion, or undue influence in the transfer of the property. [15] On January 28, 2020, Mr. Swinder Gill called the solicitor again to make a new will. Swinder Gill stated he wished to update his will in line with the recent property transfer. The solicitor again

satisfied himself of Mr. Swinder Gill's mental capacity and advised Mr. Swinder Gill that his children could challenge the will if they were excluded. Swinder Gill indicated he understood but wanted his wishes upheld. The solicitor prepared the will based on instructions from Swinder Gill. The only change from the 2013 will was the addition of Monica Gill as a residual beneficiary. [16] The solicitor met with Swinder Gill alone in the care home. The solicitor confirmed that Swinder Gill had a sharp mind and was articulate in his communication. The 2020 will was explained to Swinder Gill, and Swinder Gill executed it in the presence of the solicitor and his assistant only. Three friends of Swinder Gill provided affidavits and confirmed that in conversations with them, Swinder Gill had told them of his intention to pass the estate to his grandchildren and leave nothing to his children. [17] On April 19, 2020, Swinder Gill passed away. Because of the inter vivos transfers, the estate of Swinder Gill was nominal. It consisted of certain personal property and a car. Rani Gill did not apply for probate given the low value of the estate. The car was transferred to Monica Gill and Soliman Gill as residual beneficiaries under the estate. Rani Gill allowed the plaintiff's siblings to take certain sentimental items from the house, and she put all of the plaintiff's things, together with a

chest and sofa which had belonged to Swinder Gill, in storage for the plaintiff. She paid the storage fees for a year, during which time the plaintiff was free to retrieve his items. He failed to do so, and ultimately Rani Gill sold the goods. Issues [6] The issues on these applications can be summarized as follows: a) With respect to all three applications, are the applications suitable for determination pursuant to Rule 9-7? b) Application by Rai and Company i. Did Mr. Rai or Rai and Company owe a duty of care to Harjit in drafting and advising Swinder on the 2013 or 2020 wills, or in relation to documents prepared in the transfer of the home into joint tenancy with Monica and Soliman? c) Application by Chelsea Gill, Monica Gill and Soliman Gill i. Did Swinder intend to add Chelsea, Monica and Soliman to his bank account in 2013? ii. Should the 2013 will be set aside? iii. Did Swinder intend to add Monica and Soliman to the title to his house in 2019? iv. Was Swinder competent to instruct counsel in January 2020, is the January 2020 Will valid, and should the 2020 will be varied? d) Application by Estate of Swinder Gill and Rani Gill i. Were the following issues finally determined on February 29, 2024, and can they be dismissed as res judicata pursuant to Rule 9-5? (1) Should Rani Gill be removed as an executor to be replaced by the plaintiff (2) Is Rani Gill required to list

the valuables in the estate? (3) Is Rani Gill required to disclose her full legal name? ii. Has the plaintiff established a basis for an order cancelling child support arrears? iii. Is there a basis to order counselling for parental alienation? Are the applications suitable for determination pursuant to Rule 9-7? [7] If the court is able to find the facts necessary to dispose of the issues raised in the claim, Rule 9-7 may be suitable for a final resolution of the claims. [8] I have been provided with seven binders of evidence by Harjit on this application. The joint application record assembled by the defendants is four volumes. The defendants have provided evidence as to the creation of the wills by Swinder, the transfer of his house to his grandchildren, the mental status of Swinder at the relevant times, and the estrangement of Swinder from Harjit. [9] Harjit disagrees with the decisions made by Swinder, and has advanced evidence to support his theory of why his father was estranged from him, and to question his father's mental status. [10] Harjit also argues that he has not had an opportunity to conduct discoveries and has not received the documents I ordered to be produced on February 29, 2024. Harjit has know of the intention of the defendants to bring these applications since the fall of 2023. He has had most of their affidavits since 2021, with additional affidavits

sworn in 2023. He has had notice of their evidence for a very long time. Nevertheless, Harjit made no efforts to secure dates for discoveries of any defendants prior to these applications. All parties have an obligation to prepare themselves for trial, including a summary trial. If Harjit did not take advantage of his right to discovery, that is not because of anything done by the defendants, and I do not accept the absence of discovery evidence as a reason not proceed with these summary trial applications. [11] On February 29, 2024 I ordered that Harjit could have access to the physical documents which had already been produced to him in electronic form. Following February 29, 2024, Harjit knew the summary trials were fast approaching. However, he took no steps to review the documents until the Friday before the applications. Again, Harjit had the ability to review the documents but chose not to do so in a timely way. I do not agree this is an appropriate basis upon which to deny the summary trial applications. [12] I have reviewed the evidence advanced by Harjit, and I am satisfied that his evidence does not raise any issues which cannot be resolved on the material before me: Dahl v. Royal Bank of Canada et al., 2005 BCSC 1263 at para. 20, aff'd 2006 BCCA 369; Kemp v. Vancouver Coastal Health Authority Ltd., 2017 BCCA 229 at paras. 23-26. [13] I am satisfied that, on the

evidence before me, I am able to find the facts necessary to resolve the issues raised in this claim. I find the issues raised on these applications are suitable for determination under Rule 9-7. Did Mr. Rai or Rai and Company owe a duty of care to Harjit in drafting and advising Swinder on the 2013 or 2020 wills, or in relation to documents prepared in the transfer of the home into joint tenancy with Monica and Soliman? [14] Harjit submits that Mr. Rai and/or Rai and Company owed him a duty of care when taking instructions from Swinder in the drafting of his wills and preparing the transfer documents for Swinder's home. For Harjit's claim to succeed it must be founded upon a breach of fiduciary duty or other duty of care owed by Mr. Rai or Rai and Company to him. If no duty of care exists then there can be no basis for this action against Mr. Rai or Rai and Company. [15] Swinder was the client of Mr. Rai and Rai and Company. Harjit was, at best, a potential opposing party. Mr. Rai advised Swinder of the potential for a Wills Variation Act claim which his children, including Harjit, may bring if they were excluded from the will. This advice highlights the fact that Mr. Rai and Swinder understood Harjit was not the client or a person to whom Mr. Rai owed a fiduciary duty. [16] Where the third party's interests are in conflict with the interests of the testator, as is the case

before me, no duty of care arises between the lawyer and the third party: Smolinski v Mitchell, 1995 CanLII 1545 (BCSC) at paras. 53, 54, 65 [17] To the extent a third party beneficiary may have a claim against a solicitor who prepared a will under which they would benefit, such claims are limited to those where, due to the negligence of the solicitor, the intention of the testator was not properly expressed in the documents prepared by the solicitor and, as a result, the gift failed. [18] In Korpiel v Sanguinetti, 1999 CanLII 6524 (BCSC), the court addressed a situation very similar to the case before me, and held as follows: [23] Implicit in the plaintiffs' claim is the assertion that Sanguinetti had a duty to the plaintiffs to persuade Harper to make a Will different from how he instructed Sanguinetti. Such an alleged duty of care is distinct from the duty upon a solicitor to properly perform his or her instructions to a client either in terms of the drafting of the Will or alternatively in its execution. In Smolinski v. Mitchell, 1995 CanLII 1545 (BC SC), [1995] 10 W.W.R. 68 (B.C.S.C.), Sigurdson J. considered the question of a duty of a lawyer to his client in contrast to the duty to others who may be deprived of an inheritance by reason of a solicitor's failure to properly carry out his client's instructions. His reasons commencing at p. 79 provide a helpful review of

these two, at times parallel, obligations. In his review he included Vice Chancellor's Megarry observation in Ross v. Caunters (a firm), [1979] 3 All E.R. 580, [1980] Ch. D. 297 at 322: This argument seems to me to confuse duties which differ in their nature. In broad terms, a solicitor's duty to his client is to do for him all that he properly can, with, of course, proper care and attention. Subject to giving due weight to the adverb "properly," that duty is a paramount duty. The solicitor owes no such duty to those who are not his clients. He is no guardian of their interests. What he does for his client may be hostile and injurious to their interests; and sometimes the greater the injuries the better he will have served his client. The duty owed by a solicitor to a third party is entirely different. There is no trace of a wide and general duty to do all that properly can be done for him. Instead, in a case such as the present, there is merely a duty, owed to him as well as the client, to use proper care in carrying out the client's instructions for conferring the benefit on the third party. If it is to be held that there is a duty that is wider than that, that will have to be determined in some other case. The duty that I hold to exist in the present case, far from diluting the solicitor's duty to his client, marches with it, and, if anything, strengthens it. [24] As

observed by Megarry V.C. there is a duty owed to the potential beneficiary as well as to the client to use proper care in the fulfillment of instructions of a client that will have the result of conferring a benefit upon a third party or beneficiary. That simply says that in the fulfillment of his contractual obligations to his client, a solicitor has a duty to not act in a negligent manner and if they do so, they may be liable not only to the client but also to the deprived beneficiary. The former liability would be founded in contract while the latter is founded in tort. [19] In the case before me, Harjit advances a claim against Mr. Rai and Rai and Company alleging that the lawyer had a positive duty to advance the interests of his client's children, against the clear instructions given by his client. There is no basis in law for such a proposition, and I dismiss all claims against Mr. Rai and Rai and Company. Did Swinder intend to add Chelsea, Monica and Soliman to his bank account in 2013? [20] A Vancity bank account, number 400937, was opened by Swinder and his three grandchildren in March 2013, almost seven years before he passed away. There is no indication in any of the materials that Swinder was not competent at the time the account was created. All four people signed the banking documents required to open the account. The banking document states that all four

"acknowledge that any deposit account designated as a joint account shall be with right of survivorship entitling surviving joint account holders to continue to operate the account". The language of the banking document is admissible evidence as to the intention of the parties in creating the account: Pecore v Pecore, 2007 SCC 17 at para 60-61. [21] Chelsea Gill swore in an affidavit on this application that Swinder stated at the time that his intention was to create a bank account to benefit his grandchildren and to ensure that they were taken care of as their father, the plaintiff, had proven himself to be incapable of looking after them. [22] Harjit argues that Swinder's decision to place his accounts in the hands of his grandchildren is evidence that Chelsea was exerting undue influence over Swinder. I do not agree. [23] The opening of the joint account in 2013 is consistent with the will Swinder executed in August 2013. The only evidence in relation to the creation of the 2013 will comes from the solicitor, who attested to the fact that Swinder came on his own to meet with him and write the will, and it was Swinder's intention at that time for the grandchildren to receive the entire contents of the joint account. [24] Mr. Rai swore an affidavit confirming that he satisfied himself that Swinder had the testamentary capacity to instruct him and make a will. Swinder told Mr.

Rai that he was estranged from his children, and wanted to leave his estate to the three grandchildren. Mr. Rai advised Swinder of the potential risk of a challenge to the will, and Swinder continued with his instructions. In the 2013 will, Swinder included a paragraph confirming his intention to disinherit Harjit, explaining his reasons for doing so, and confirming he wished his intentions to be respected if there was a challenge under the Wills Variation Act. [25] In the 2013 will, Swinder expressly transferred the bank account to his three grandchildren. I find the gift to the three grandchildren of Swinder's bank account is entirely consistent with his decision to open the same account with the three grandchildren in March 2013. [26] While Harjit is suspicious of his father's decision to gift the bank account to the three grandchildren, these suspicions are not enough to overcome what I find is clear evidence of Swinder's intentions. [27] I find that Swinder intended to add Chelsea, Monica and Soliman to his bank account in 2013, as joint holders with a right of survivorship. I find Harjit has not established any pattern of undue influence on the part of Chelsea which would invalidate the creation of the joint account in 2013. Should the 2013 will be set aside? [28] The 2013 will is no longer effective, due to the fact that Swinder created a new will in 2020. For reasons

that follow, I find the 2020 will is valid. As such, there is no basis upon which the 2013 could be set aside. Did Swinder intend to add Monica and Soliman to the title to his house in 2019? [29] In the 2013 will, Soliman was the residual beneficiary of Swinder's estate. This estate included Swinder's home, located at 7445 Garfield Drive, Delta, BC. [30] In July 2019, Swinder was admitted to Surrey Memorial Hospital. He was very ill and lost consciousness for a period of time. He recovered, but did not return to independent living. In October 2019, Swinder was planning to move from the hospital into a care home and told Chelsea he wanted to put his affairs in order prior to the move. He told Chelsea that he wanted his house to be transferred to her, Monica and Soliman. Chelsea told him that she did not want the house, as she already was a co-owner in a home. [31] In October 2019, Swinder called Mr. Rai and indicated he wished to transfer his house to his grandchildren. On October 11, 2019 Mr. Rai met with Swinder at Surrey Memorial Hospital with regard to the transfer. Swinder had also told Mr. Rai he wanted Chelsea appointed as his power of attorney. Mr. Rai brought the appropriate documents for Swinder to transfer the property and appoint his attorney. [32] Mr. Rai confirmed that Swinder had no problems with his mental capacity. Mr. Rai was satisfied that Swinder understood

the nature of ownership of the property, and advised Swinder regarding the Fraudulent Conveyance Act. [33] Mr. Rai confirmed that Swinder instructed him to add Monica and Soliman to the title as joint tenants with him. Swinder told Mr. Rai that it was his intention that no resulting trust be created, and that he intended the property to transfer to them fully upon his death. Mr. Rai prepared a declaration regarding Swinder's intentions to transfer the property to joint ownership. The transfer documents were reviewed and executed by Swinder without the presence of his grandchildren. On a later date Monica and Soliman attended at Mr. Rai's office to complete the documents required to transfer the property to them as joint tenants. [34] No evidence was advanced by Harjit to counter the clear evidence of Mr. Rai who took instructions from Swinder at the time. While Harjit has suspicions, these suspicions are not founded in any evidence capable of challenging the clear and reliable evidence of Mr. Rai. Harjit also relies on what he says is traditional Indian culture, in that the son should inherit the father's home. Harjit says it is his expectation that he should inherit the house as he is the oldest son, and says this is what his father wanted. This suggestion flies in the face of the clear evidence of Swinder's intention in 2013 and 2019. [35] I find Swinder intended to add

Monica and Soliman to the title of his property, and intended the property to fully transfer to them upon his death. Swinder did not intend for Monica and Soliman to hold the house in trust for Swinder's estate. [36] The certificate of pending litigation which was filed by Harjit against the property is cancelled and shall be removed from title. Was Swinder competent to instruct counsel in January 2020, is the January 2020 Will valid, and should the 2020 Will be varied? [37] On January 28, 2020, Swinder called Mr. Rai, seeking to update his will. Swinder told Mr. Rai that he wanted to update the will to reflect the transfer of his property which he had effected in the fall of 2019. Over the telephone, Swinder instructed Mr. Rai to appoint his daughter in law Rani Gill as his executor and trustee, with Chelsea as an alternate executor and trustee; leave Vancity account 400937 to the three grandchildren; and leave the residue of his estate to Monica and Soliman equally. [38] Mr. Rai recorded the following observations regarding Swinder's presentation at the time: Very articulate + fluent in Punjabi + English Sharp mind for elderly. Sound mind. No indications SSG is under duress, undue influence or any other factor forcing him to dispose of his estate as instructed in Will. Sufficient mental capacity. Appreciates the uniqueness of his instructions in Will. Very close relationship

with 3 grandchildren. They have taken care of him for the past many years. Explained Wills Variation Act + possible challenges. Understood the same. Wants wishes carried out. [39] Consistent with the assessment made by Mr. Rai, is the evidence of friends of Swinder. [40] Minder Singh Sihota, a long time friend of Swinder's, visited Swinder at Surrey Memorial Hospital and in the care home. He visited him almost daily. He swore that he observed no issues with Swinder's mental health, memory or incapacity while he was at the hospital after he came out the coma. While Swinder was in the care home, Swinder mentioned his intention to leave his estate to his grandchildren. Minder Sihota observed that while Swinder was in the care home, he was doing well, was happy, felt safe, and had nothing to worry about. Minder Sihota also confirmed that there had been a falling out between Swinder and Harjit in 2008 or 2009. [41] Iqbal Hundal, another long time friend and nephew of Swinder, swore that he spoke with Swinder often on the telephone, including in the fall of 2019 and in January 2020. He had no concerns about Swinder's mental capacity or mental health. Mr. Hundal stated that Swinder's health issues were all physical, but his mind was always sound, he could remember things from the past as they reminisced, and talked about normal day to day things together. In the summer and fall of

2019, and January 2020, Swinder could remember things and converse normally. Mr. Hundal confirmed that Swinder told him of his intention to transfer the house to Soliman and Monica. Mr. Hundal also confirmed the falling out between Harjit and Swinder. [42] Jaswinder Singh Sidhu has known Swinder since the 1960s. He confirmed that in 2017 or 2018 Swinder told him he had put the three grandchildren on a joint bank account, was leaving everything in his will to Soliman. Swinder told him that he was not leaving anything to his own children, and all was going to the grandchildren. Mr. Sidhu visited Swinder in the hospital in 2019, and found that after Swinder regained consciousness he was able to converse as normal. He visited Swinder in February and March 2020 at the care home, and found he was fully aware, alert and able to talk to him without any problems. [43] Monica, Chelsea and Soliman all provided affidavits where they attested to their grandfather's competency. Rani swore that in the fall of 2019, she had thorough discussions with Swinder about which care home he wished to move into. She attested that he was capable of having logical and well-reasoned conversations to make important decisions for himself. [44] Harjit provided no evidence capable of displacing the clear evidence of competency at the time the 2020 will was drafted. While Swinder was nearing the end of his

life, there is no evidence that he was suffering from any mental incapacity. I also note that the 2020 will is consistent with the 2013 will in leaving nothing to Harjit. The explanation given in the 2013 will for disinheriting Harjit is continued in the 2020 will. [45] Harjit's affidavit alleges that Rani alienated the children from him, which then caused Rani and the children to improperly influence Swinder to exclude Harjit from Swinder's estate. Harjit seeks to have me find parental alienation on the part of Rani, and attempts to revisit many issues arises out of their unhappy marriage and break up to buttress his position. This is simply not appropriate. The family law dispute was finally concluded in 2009, and it is not open to Harjit to attempt to reopen that litigation in this action. [46] There is no evidence before me which would support a finding that Swinder was unduly influenced by anyone. Swinder's reasons for disinheriting Harjit have nothing to do with Harjit's marriage or Harjit's actions towards Monica, Chelsea or Soliman. Rather, Swinder stated in his will the following: I MAKE no bequest to my son, HARJIT GILL, and l leave to him nothing under this my Will because he has not treated me with the proper respect, dignity and honesty during the past fourteen years as a son should treat his father. I have had very little or no contact with my son, HARJIT GILL,

for the past fourteen years. He has not treated me with the proper conduct as a son should treat his father. My wife died in January 2013. Harjit Gill did not even attend his mother's funeral in January 2013. I make this statement in order to avoid a challenge to this Will under the Will's Variation Act [sic] of British Columbia. I have been advised on the provisions of the Wills Variation Act of British Columbia, as amended from time to time, and feel that my reasons outlined above are reasonable and I would ask any Court examining my Will to allow the same to be probated without variation. [47] Harjit attempted to demonstrate that his father misunderstood certain interactions between them, in an attempt to show that Swinder's justification was incorrect. Harjit admits that he was estranged from his father since 2009, and refused to apologize to his father after the incident that led to their estrangement. But he then seeks to argue that he was justified in not apologizing, and his father simply did not understand what really happened. I am not prepared to assess the validity of Swinder's rationale for disinheriting Harjit. There are many witnesses who confirmed Swinder's views, held since 2008 or 2009. Swinder is entitled to form his own views of his son, and on the evidence before me I do not agree that there is no basis in reality for those views. [48] Harjit's opinions and

speculations about the behaviours of his parents, his wife and his children over the last 15 years are not evidence upon which I can properly rely on this application. [49] Harjit submitted an affidavit from his sister Harpinderjit Mundie, in which she stated the medical team in the hospital would only take instruction from Chelsea and Rani. She also stated that Chelsea told her not to visit her father due to his ill health. She states that during this period, Monica and Soliman were added to the title of Swinder's residence. Ms. Mundie attested to the fact that she did not know about her father's will or the decision to add Monica and Soliman to the title of the house. [50] For the reasons I have already stated, I do not agree that Chelsea did anything to improperly influence her grandfather. Soliman was to be the sole residual beneficiary of Swinder's estate since 2013. All of Swinder's children were disinherited since 2013. The affidavits of Rani, Chelsea, Monica, Soliman and the three friends all confirm that Rani and Chelsea were very involved in Swinder's care for years. It is not surprising that the hospital would take instructions from them and not Ms. Mundie. The fact that Swinder chose to add Monica and Soliman to the title of the house in the fall of 2019 does not establish any undue influence on the part of Chelsea. It is an action consistent with the actions of

Swinder since 2013. [51] I am satisfied that Swinder was competent to make a will in January 2020, and I uphold the 2020 Will as valid. [52] I am not satisfied that the 2020 will should be varied. The estate is worth very little. Most of the value of Swinder's assets lay in the bank account and the house, both of which were transferred during Swinder's lifetime. Harjit's attempt to vary the 2020 will is founded on a misunderstanding that the assets transferred during Swinder's lifetime could be transferred back to the estate, and that he is entitled to share in his father's estate given his position as eldest son, and because he is presently in strained financial circumstances. [53] The value of the estate is so low that an application for probate was not necessary. Rani made attempts to offer the few goods that remained in Swinder's property to Harjit and the other siblings. I see no basis upon which to order a variation of the 2020 will. Were the following issues finally determined on February 29, 2024? · Should Rani Gill be removed as an executor to be replaced by the plaintiff · Is Rani Gill required to list the valuables in the estate? · Is Rani Gill required to disclose her full legal name? [54] These matters were finally determined in my oral decision of February 29, 2024. Pursuant to Rule 9-5, I dismiss all such claims as res judicata. Has the plaintiff established a

basis for an order cancelling child support arrears? [55] Harjit seeks cancellation of child support arrears that were agreed to in a divorce settlement between Harjit and Rani in December 2009. There is simply no basis for such an order on the facts before me. [56] Harjit has not complied with the requirements of s. 174 of the Family Law Act, SBC 2011, c. 25 and has not established why it would be grossly unfair to cancel the child support arrears that have remained unpaid since ordered in 2009. [57] Harjit's application to cancel child support arrears is dismissed. Is there a basis to order counselling for parental alienation? [58] Harjit seeks an order that Chelsea, Monica and Soliman seek psychological counselling for parental alienation. There is no basis at law to make such an order in relation to adult children. The facts before me do not support such an order. [59] I dismiss the claim for counselling. Summary of disposition [60] The notice of civil claim brought by the plaintiff Harjit Singh Gill is dismissed in its entirety. The certificate of pending litigation filed against the property, located at 7445 Garfield Drive, Delta, BC, is cancelled and shall be removed from title. Costs [61] The parties sought leave to make submissions on costs after my decision was rendered. They may do so in writing, on the following schedule: defendants' submissions to be provided within 30 days of my decision, plaintiff's response to be provided within 30 days of the defendants' submissions, any reply submissions from the defendants to be provided within 10 days of the plaintiff's submissions. All submissions must be copied to all parties, and sent through the civil registry. "W.A. Baker J."