When Executors Don’t Get Along: The Court’s Considerations on Addressing an Inability to Work Together

Disagreements between co-executors are not uncommon — especially when the role is shared by grieving siblings or family members with a strained relationship. But how much conflict is too much? In a recent case with somewhat unique circumstances, Parkinson Estate (Re), 2025 BCSC 152 [Parkinson], the British Columbia Supreme Court reaffirmed that personal animosity alone is not enough to remove an executor from their role.

In Parkinson, a sister (Ms. Parkinson) applied to have her brother (Mr. Parkinson) passed over as co-executor of their father’s estate. This would leave Ms. Parkinson as the sole executor under their father’s will. Under the will, the two siblings are the sole beneficiaries.

Their father passed away in June 2022, but probate of the Will had not been obtained as of the date of the application hearing, which was in January 2025. Ms. Parkinson had not even asked Mr. Parkinson to sign the probate application documents, and Mr. Parkinson filed a notice of dispute regarding that issue.

Ms. Parkinson argued that hostility between her and Mr. Parkinson prevented them from properly exercising their duties as co-executors of the estate. Ms. Parkinson alleged that Mr. Parkinson harassed her and her husband, called in wellness checks from the police, and even served them with an eviction notice. Mr. Parkinson, on the other hand, denied the allegations and said he was prepared to administer the estate in line with his father’s wishes. It is worth noting that MacDonald J. found that Ms. Parkinson’s claims were unsubstantiated assertions, and Ms. Parkinson had acted unilaterally in respect of the administration of the estate.

There are three sources of authority to use to pass over or remove an executor, being: the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13, s. 158 [WESA]; the Trustee Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 464, s. 30 [Trustee Act]; and the Court's inherent jurisdiction (Morelli v Morelli, 2014 BCSC 106, at para. 29). The tests for removal of an executor under either WESA or the Trustee Act are effectively the same. However, the courts have been reluctant to lay down a general rule for the circumstances in which a personal representative or trustee should be removed, beyond the broad principle that the main guide is “the welfare of the beneficiaries” (Klassen v Cornies, 2023 BCCA 420, at para. 100).

A testator has the right to choose their executor(s) and the courts will try to respect that choice where possible. Therefore, there must be real, not speculative, reasons to displace a testator’s choice. When the issue is the executors’ inability to work together, the test is whether their relationship has broken down to the point that proper administration of the estate and the beneficiaries’ interests are at risk (Wilson v Heathcote, 2009 BCSC 554, at para. 75). The deterioration must be severe enough to justify overruling the testator’s intentions; mere conflict or poor relationships are insufficient. The threshold requires a relationship that is unworkable to override the testator’s wishes.

In Parkinson, MacDonald J. found Ms. Parkinson had not made meaningful efforts to work with her brother. Thus, notwithstanding almost three years had passed since their father’s death, it was “premature” to conclude that animosity between siblings would jeopardize proper estate administration. In essence, the Court concluded the parties had not even attempted to work together yet. It is a somewhat unique result, in that the absence of efforts to work with a co-executor to fulfil their duties worked as a consideration in favour of maintaining the co-executors in their role.

The Parkinson decision stands for the overall principle that personal animosity between executors, even if deeply felt, is not, by itself, enough to justify removal. Executors are not expected to be friends, but they are expected to make a genuine effort to work together to carry out the testator’s wishes. As the decision in Parkinson confirms, the bar for removal is high, and courts will be slow to interfere with a testator’s chosen executors unless the conflict has caused clear dysfunction harming estate administration or beneficiaries’ interests. Before turning to litigation, co-executors should keep in mind that courts expect a genuine effort to cooperate — and a failure to try could ultimately undermine an attempt to remove the other executor.