In the case of Tom v. Tang, 2023 BCCA 221, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia addressed the longstanding uncertainty surrounding a will-maker’s reasons for favoring or disinheriting their adult children. Justice Fenlon clarified that the assessment of a will-maker’s moral duty to adult children must adhere to the objective standard of a reasonable will-maker, as mandated by the Tataryn principles.
Mrs. Tom, the deceased, left a will explicitly stating her reasons for allocating 85% of her estate to two of her five children who had provided substantial care during the last three years of her life. While the trial judge varied the will, the appellants argued that Mrs. Tom’s wishes, supported by valid and rational reasons, should prevail.
The court, however, held that the objective judicious parent standard was paramount in determining whether the moral obligation to all children had been met. Despite Mrs. Tom’s documented and factually rational reasons, the court emphasized the need for an assessment based on contemporary community standards.
Upon appeal, the court upheld the variance of the will, adjusting the major beneficiaries’ shares to 30% each, while the remaining three children received 13 1/3% each. This decision underscored the importance of not solely relying on the subjective validity and rationality of a will-maker’s reasons but also considering the objective standard of a judicious parent. In essence, the court sought to balance respect for the testator’s wishes with the overarching obligation to ensure equitable and just provision for all beneficiaries.
The court’s decision in Tom v. Tang was guided by the principle that the objective standard of a reasonable will-maker, as established in Tataryn, should take precedence in evaluating a will-maker’s moral obligations. While Mrs. Tom had provided valid and rational reasons for favoring two of her children in her will, the court recognized the need to consider whether these reasons aligned with contemporary community standards of what a judicious parent would do in similar circumstances. The court acknowledged the substantial care provided but emphasized that this alone did not negate the moral claims of the other three children, who had also demonstrated dutiful and devoted relationships with their mother. By adjusting the distribution to better reflect the moral obligations owed to all children, the court sought to strike a balance between respecting the testator’s wishes and ensuring an objectively reasonable and equitable provision for each beneficiary. This decision underscores the court’s commitment to upholding moral duties in a manner that aligns with societal expectations and contemporary standards of fairness and justice.
