Gowans Estate (Re)

2026 BCSC 17 Gowans Estate (Re)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Gowans Estate (Re), 2026 BCSC 17 Date: 20260107 Docket: P21290 Registry: Chilliwack In the Matter of the Estate of Theresa Irene Gowans, Deceased Before: Associate Judge Bilawich (As Registrar) Reasons for Decision Counsel for the Executor, Kenshin R. Lee: V. Sidhu Counsel for the Beneficiary, British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals: E. Chamberlain Counsel for the Beneficiary, Huntington Society of Canada T. A. Sali Written Submissions: Vancouver, B.C. Executor - November 13, 2025 BCSPCA - November 26, 2025 Executor Reply - December 3, 2025 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. January 7, 2026 Introduction [1] Thes are my reasons regarding costs arising from a contested passing of the executor Mr. Lee's accounts. On November 4, 2025, I issued reasons, indexed as Gowans Estate (Re), 2025 BCSC 2173. Mr. Lee had presented a Statement of Disbursements, claiming the following (disputed items in bold): (a) Clearpath Law Group $9,550.76 2,708.16 (b) Mr. Lee - reimburse Probate Fees paid 9,882.00 (c) Mr. Lee - reimburse home insurance (2020) 2,709.00 (d) Mr. Lee - reimburse vet bill (dog food) 174.29 (e) Mr. Lee - reimburse accountant fees paid 2,504.25 (f) CRA - 2018 Taxes 8,415.07 (g) CRA - 2019 Taxes 48,691.40 (h) Speculation and Vacancy Tax 17,956.18 (i) Minister of Finance - Add'l Probate

Fees 3,596.00 (j) Alliance Lawyers 3,528.00 1,478.40 Subtotal - Disbursements $111,193.51 [2] He also claimed reimbursement of the following expenses: (k) Henderson's Funeral Home & Crematorium $3,855.90 (l) VitalAire (medical oxygen supplies) 1,252.33 (m) Shaw Cable (14 mos service to Property) 2,562.56 (n) Fortis BC 891.44 (o) BC Hydro 4,757.91 (p) Dog Food/Care - live in caregiver - dogs 35,250.00 (q) White Rock City Tours - spreading ashes 450.00 (r) City of Chilliwack - utilities and property tax 4,404.33 Subtotal - Expenses $53,424.47 [3] Finally, he sought a fee based on 5% of the gross value of the estate, which he calculated at $49,090.47. [4] In my reasons, I: a) Disallowed in their entirety items (l) VitalAire, (m) Shaw Cable and (p) Dog Food / Care - live in caregiver for dogs. This was a total reduction of $39,064.89. b) Allowed item (h) Speculation and Vacancy Tax, albeit with the qualification that it was not clear whether the entire charge was justified, and that I would address the executor's apparent lack of care and attention to this item when considering the appropriate quantum of his fee; and c) Allowed the executor's fee at 1.5% of the gross value of the estate, rounded up to $15,000 - a difference of $34,090.47 from what was claimed. [5] I also directed that the parties provide written submissions concerning costs. Position of the Parties [6] The

executor's position is that: a) Primary: Costs of all parties, assessed as special costs, should be paid from the Estate; and b) Alternatively, if the Court concludes that Mr. Lee's conduct warrants a departure from the general rule, each party should bear their own costs. [7] BC SPCA's position is that: a) The Executor should be denied his costs associated with preparing and passing his accounts; and b) BC SPCA should receive its costs for participating in the passing of accounts out of the Estate, on a special costs basis. Analysis [8] The general rule is that an executor is entitled to be indemnified for costs reasonably incurred in the administration of the estate, which includes the costs of passing their accounts. However, in some circumstances the Executor's conduct may warrant a departure from the general rule. [9] BC SPCA notes that Mr. Lee was found to have: a) Unnecessarily delayed in concluding the administration of the estate [para. 53]; b) Unreasonably delayed in responding to BC SPCA's reasonable requests for additional information about expenses claimed [para. 53]; c) Displayed minimal skill in the course of administering the Estate, including failing to pursue tax savings through charitable tax receipts and failing to challenge a 2019 Speculation and Vacancy Tax assessment on the Deceased's residence and making inappropriate arrangements for in-home care for

the Deceased's pet dogs [para. 54]; d) Failed to maximize the residue of the Estate [para. 55]; e) Provided materially different expense claims in accounts in response to a request for backup information [para. 14, 31 and 54]; and f) Increased the amount of remuneration he was seeking in response to BC SPCA's legitimate questions about his accounts [paras. 14, 43 and 54]. [10] It says the foregoing warrants denying Mr. Lee his costs relating to his passing of accounts. [11] With respect to the BC SPCA's own costs, it points to a comment made in Chute Estate (Re), 2014 BCSC 344 (Registrar) at para.102: Typically, special costs of all of those involved in the passing of accounts are paid from the estate. [12] It says this supports allowing it special costs from the Estate. [13] Mr. Lee argues that a contested hearing to pass accounts was necessary to adjudicate bona fide disputes between him and two of the three residual beneficiaries regarding interpretation of the Deceased's wishes concerning dog care and payment of estate liabilities (Vacancy Tax). He refers to Morgan v. Cowper-Smith, 2025 BCSC 768, as an example where the Court confirmed a Registrar's nuanced approach to a highly contentious passing of accounts. The Registrar in that case made findings that the executor's actions were "almost exclusively driven by self-interest" and that she had advanced meritless claims.

Despite this, she recommended that the executor be indemnified by the estate for a portion of the hearing that would have been necessary for a less controversial accounting. In that case, it had been a multi-day hearing and the registrar found that two of these days were necessary and the balance were wasted and spent on meritless claims. [14] Mr. Lee argues that in the present case it is not possible to divide the hearing into necessary versus wasted portions, rather the entire hearing was necessary to resolve core bona fide disputes. There was also no finding made that Mr. Lee had acted in his self-interest or in bad faith. Mr. Lee's accounts may have been flawed, but they were not wholly inadequate, as was the case in Re: Estate of Marian Catherine Stead, 2009 BCSC 821. [15] Finally, Mr. Lee says he has already been punished through the substantial reduction from the $49,050 fee he had been seeking to the $15,000 fee which was awarded, based on the factors which BC SPCA has highlighted. Depriving him of his costs would constitute a double penalty and effectively deprive him of the remuneration he was awarded. I take this to be a suggestion that his legal costs relating to passing of his accounts are comparable to his $15,000 fee. [16] BC SPCA says a passing of accounts likely would not have been necessary, or it may have been much narrower, limited to determination of

executor remuneration, if Mr. Lee had acted reasonably. Mr. Lee responds that this is speculative and that passing of accounts is a statutory right of the executor to obtain a discharge. The hearing was inevitable due to the high level of acrimony and the differing positions regarding the Deceased's wishes regarding her pets. [17] I have concluded that it is appropriate that Mr. Lee bear his own costs associated with passing his accounts, for the following reasons: a) One of the major issues in dispute was his decision claim as an expense amounts he claimed he paid Mr. Myren for live-in dog care. This included a substantial weekly amount plus free occupation of the Deceased's residence plus utilities. This became a $35,250 issue, which only arose in the second version of Mr. Lee's accounts. It appeared to be, in part at least, a reaction to BC SPCA requesting backup for expenses he had claimed in the first version of his accounts. b) The premise for the dog care expense was a verbal request which the Deceased allegedly made to Mr. Lee. There was no basis for this in the Deceased's Will. c) In the second version of his accounts, Mr. Lee increased his claimed fee from 3% to 5%. No explanation was provided for the increase. It also appeared to be an unjustified reaction BC SPCA requesting backup for expenses he had claimed in the first version of his accounts. 5% is also the

maximum rate of remuneration. Based on the evidence which Mr. Lee tendered regarding his work administering the Estate, there was no realistic possibility he could justify claiming a maximum level fee. [18] By inserting these issues and amounts into the second version of his accounts, Mr. Lee effectively put BC SPCA into a position where it had to contest his accounts. Their insertion into the dispute was intentional on Mr. Lee's part, and appeared to be an inappropriate over-reaction to an executor/trustee being asked to account to beneficiaries. It does appear that if those issues had not been inserted into the accounting, a compromise would have been much easier to achieve and a contested passing of accounts may well have been avoided. [19] I expressly do not include Mr. Lee's lack of care in relation to the apparent over-payment of Speculation and Vacancy Tax because I have already factored that into the assessment of Mr. Lee's fee. [20] I also conclude that it is appropriate that BC SPCA receive its costs of the passing of accounts as special costs from the Estate. Orders Made [21] Mr. Lee will bear his own costs associated with the preparation and passing of his accounts. [22] BC SPCA will receive its costs of the passing of Mr. Lee's accounts as special costs from the Estate. "Associate Judge Bilawich"