An inheritance dispute involving a C$5.5 million estate has ended with a significant victory for charity in British Columbia. When 80-year-old Shirley Isobel Alexander died in April 2025, she left behind a carefully documented estate plan directing her wealth towards charitable causes. But after her death, a woman claiming to be her friend came forward with photocopies of a different will that allegedly named her as the sole beneficiary. The competing claims eventually landed in court, where the Supreme Court of British Columbia delivered its decision on October 29, 2026, ruling in favour of Alexander’s original charitable intentions.
A fortune intended for charitable causes
Alexander, who lived in Lac La Hache, British Columbia, died on April 29, 2025, without a spouse or children. Her estate was valued at approximately C$5.5 million, with her first cousins among her closest relatives.According to Clark Wilson LLP, her estate planning dated back to March 2018, when she signed a will prepared by her lawyer. It directed her wealth towards registered charities and foundations she had identified in writing. It also gave her executor limited discretion to select charitable organisations if necessary.Several years later, Alexander decided to make one important change. The lawyer named as executor in her original will had been disbarred, prompting her to appoint a trust company instead. In April 2025, she met with a new lawyer in Williams Lake and signed a codicil confirming the provisions of her 2018 will while replacing the executor.She also completed a beneficiary designation directing her estate towards a donor-advised fund, accompanied by instructions outlining the charitable causes she wanted to support.
The photocopied will that changed everything
The dispute began after Alexander’s death, when a woman described as her friend produced photocopies of documents that appeared to tell a very different story.As detailed by Clark Wilson LLP, the woman presented two versions of a purported will dated November 8, 2024. One named her as Alexander’s sole beneficiary and appointed her as co-executor alongside the trust company. The second version had the date and the trust company’s appointment crossed out, without initials or a replacement date.She also produced a typed but unsigned letter dated April 15, 2025. According to her account, Alexander had handed her the documents in sealed envelopes with instructions to open them after her death.However, the original documents and envelopes were never produced, and the identities of the alleged witnesses to the 2024 will remained unknown. The woman challenged the validity of the April codicil, questioned Alexander’s mental capacity and sought to have the photocopied documents recognised as her final testamentary instructions.
Why the court rejected the claim
The Supreme Court examined the competing evidence, including Alexander’s personal journals, financial records, legal documents and electronic devices. Two searches of her home uncovered her original 1991 will and a copy of the 2018 document, but nothing connected to the alleged 2024 will or the unsigned letter.Clark Wilson LLP notes that a forensic examination of her devices also found no trace of the disputed documents. Her journals, which recorded much of her daily life, contained no reference to signing a new will or handing over sealed envelopes.The court also considered evidence from her lawyer and financial advisor, who had known her for more than 25 years. The drafting lawyer provided detailed accounts of his meeting with Alexander, including discussions about her assets, family circumstances and charitable intentions.The court found the April 2025 codicil valid and confirmed that it upheld the 2018 will. It also concluded that neither version of the alleged 2024 document met the requirements for probate. The unsigned letter was rejected because it did not demonstrate final testamentary intentions.
The C$5.5 million estate goes to charity
In its October 29 decision, Alexander Estate (Re), 2026 BCSC 2092, the court admitted the 2018 will and the 2025 codicil to probate in solemn form, rejecting the competing documents.The ruling also highlighted an important distinction in estate disputes: photocopies alone are not necessarily enough to establish the validity of a will. Under British Columbia’s Wills, Estates and Succession Act, courts can sometimes correct deficiencies in testamentary documents, but only when reliable evidence establishes that they are authentic and reflect the deceased’s final intentions.As Clark Wilson LLP explains, the case ultimately turned on the strength of the evidence. Detailed records, independent witnesses and a properly documented estate plan proved far more convincing than unverified photocopies and conflicting accounts.For Alexander, the decision means that the charitable legacy she had spent years putting in place will stand, rather than being displaced by documents that the court found insufficient to establish her final wishes.Image Courtesy: istock
