If estate administration and adult capacity law in British Columbia are producing avoidable delay, complexity, and downstream public cost, the question becomes what—if anything—should change.
There is no single solution. A range of policy options exists, each with different implications for families, courts, professionals, and public institutions. The purpose of this page is to outline those options and their trade-offs, not to recommend a particular approach.
Option 1: Status quo with incremental improvements
One approach is to retain the current court-centred model while pursuing targeted improvements.
Examples might include:
- streamlined forms and procedures
- additional court or registry resources
- clearer guidance for common, uncontested cases
- limited registry or document-tracking enhancements
Potential advantages
- low institutional disruption
- familiar processes for professionals and institutions
- minimal legislative change
Limitations
- structural reliance on courts remains
- incremental changes may not address delay in high-volume routine matters
- downstream impacts on health and care systems likely persist
This option emphasizes continuity, but may offer limited relief where problems are systemic rather than procedural.
Option 2: Partial administrative models
A second approach is to shift defined categories of routine, non-adversarial matters from courts to administrative determination, while retaining courts for contested or complex cases.
This could include:
- uncontested probate
- routine fiduciary appointments
- non-adversarial adult capacity determinations
Courts would continue to hear:
- contested proceedings
- appeals
- judicial review
Potential advantages
- reduced court workload
- faster decisions for routine matters
- better alignment between process and risk
Challenges
- defining clear boundaries between administrative and court jurisdiction
- managing transitions between forums
- ensuring consistency and public confidence
This model reflects how many other areas of law allocate work between courts and administrative bodies.
Option 2B: Expanded role for the Public Guardian and Trustee
Rather than creating a new institution, government could consider expanding the role of the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT).
Possible expansions might include:
- additional administrative or quasi-adjudicative functions
- earlier intervention in routine matters
- enhanced coordination with health and care systems
Potential advantages
- institutional continuity
- existing expertise in adult protection and fiduciary oversight
- potentially lower startup costs
Considerations
- risk of mandate dilution or role conflict
- need to preserve independence between protective and adjudicative functions
- resource and governance implications
This option may be less disruptive but requires careful design to avoid overloading an already complex mandate.
Option 3: A unified probate and adult capacity tribunal
A more structural option is the creation of a specialized administrative tribunal responsible for routine probate and adult capacity matters.
Such a body could:
- determine routine, uncontested applications
- oversee fiduciary appointments
- support preventive functions such as registries
- coordinate more closely with health and care systems
Courts would remain available for:
- contested cases
- appeals
- judicial review
Potential advantages
- clear specialization and accountability
- end-to-end responsibility for routine matters
- improved timeliness and consistency
Challenges
- greater institutional change
- implementation complexity
- need for careful governance and safeguards
This option offers the greatest structural change, but also the greatest potential for systemic realignment.
Common design questions across all options
Regardless of the model chosen, several design questions recur:
- How to preserve procedural fairness and judicial oversight
- How to ensure accessibility for individuals with limited digital access
- How to fund processes without shifting costs unfairly
- How to integrate legal authority with health and care systems
- How to pilot and evaluate changes before full implementation
These questions are as important as the choice of institutional model itself.
Why no single recommendation?
This site and the accompanying discussion paper do not advocate a preferred option.
Each approach involves trade-offs among:
- speed
- cost
- accessibility
- institutional disruption
- public confidence
Determining the appropriate balance requires input from legal experts, health professionals, administrators, community organizations, and those with lived experience.
Learn more
Download the discussion paper (PDF)
Reforming Estate, Probate, and Adult Capacity Law in British Columbia
Why Legal Delay Becomes a Public Cost
How current processes can generate downstream impacts beyond the justice system.
How Other Systems Have Modernized
What comparative experience suggests about allocating routine decision-making.