Wilkinson v. Chartier[1] is a 2025 decision out of the British Columbia Court of Appeal dealing with questions of limitation periods in estates matters. In January 2017, Mrs. Ruby Whiffin died and was survived by her two daughters, Elaine Chartier and Diane Wilkinson. Soon after their mother’s passing, Diane learned that Ruby had changed her will prior to death, naming Elaine her executrix and leaving her most of the Estate. Ruby had also transferred her main asset – her house – to Elaine while she was still alive. Inevitably, Diane would initiate litigation to challenge the will and prior transfer of the house to her sister.
Irrespective of the will challenge issue, in 2022, Elaine moved to have the house transfer issue dismissed by summary judgment on the grounds that Diane had passed the 2-year limitation period for such a claim. The chambers judge determined in Elaine’s favour, noting that “Diane knew, as of March 2017 at the latest, that she could and should take steps to address her concerns about the transfer of the [house] to Elaine.”[2] As Diane did not initiate her claim until October 2019, over 2 years after this apparent point of discoverability, the judge ruled that Diane had passed the limitations period prescribed by the BC Limitation Act[3], and that her claim against the house was dismissed.
Elaine appealed this decision, heard by the BC Court of Appeal in December 2024, with a consequent decision published in February 2025. The Honourable Justice Horsman, in a single judge decision, determined that the chambers judge erred in law and allowed the appeal. Her reasoning was that the judge had erred both in weighing the evidence of the claim, which is not allowed on a summary judgment application and in applying the wrong test for discovery of a claim.[4] Regarding the latter point, the appellate judge asserted that the correct application of the Limitation Act in this case should involve s. 12(2) of the Act, which specifically addresses the “discovery rule for claims based on fraud or recovery of trust property.[5]”
In cases where this section is activated, the threshold for discoverability is higher, starting to run once a party has become “fully aware” of a potential fraudulent breach of trust. As the full extent of the house transfer was not yet appreciated by Diane as of March 2017, Justice Horsman ruled that the chambers judge’s dismissal of the house claim for missing the limitation period was incorrect and allowed Diane’s appeal.
Wilkinson v. Chartier highlights the importance of a careful, context-specific approach to discoverability when determining when a limitation period begins to run in estates litigation. The decision emphasizes the heightened discoverability standard applicable to claims involving fraud or trust property, and the nuanced assessment required to determine when a claimant can be said to be fully aware of a potential claim.
[1] Wilkinson v. Chartier, 2025 BCCA 53 (CanLII) – https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2025/2025bcca53/2025bcca53.html?resultId=eb0ec58df1644e2caf50aaff9ae3cb51&searchId=2025-12-31T13:04:10:776/f643cdfd0e2642478997724133ff1515
[2] Chartier v. Chartier, 2022 BCSC 2155 (CanLII), para. 29 – https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc2155/2022bcsc2155.html
[3] Limitation Act, SBC 2012, c 13 – https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/laws/stat/sbc-2012-c-13/latest/sbc-2012-c-13.html
[4] Supra 1 – para. 6.
[5] Supra 3 – s. 12