As is indicated by the word “may” emphasised above in s. 151(3), the decision to grant leave is discretionary and serves a gate-keeping function pursuant to the court’s supervisory role in administering estates. In exercising its discretion, the court will consider both if a claim is “necessary” and “expedient”. Claims may be necessary if the personal representative of the estate is unable or unwilling to advance a claim which is in the best interests of the estate: Bunn v. Bunn Estate, 2016 BCSC 2146 at para. 50.
An expedient claim is a claim which is in the best interests of the estate: Bunn at para. 50-51. A claim must have sufficient merit to be considered within the best interests of the estate, having regard to the attendant inconvenience and expense of pursuing a claim. Unsubstantiated claims based on conjecture and suspicion do not merit the court’s discretion to grant leave. Fry v. Fry, 2018 BCSC 1018 at paras. 84-90.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.