Wols v. Funk: Moral Obligation, Disability, and Wills Variation in BC

2026 BCSC 404 | BC Supreme Court | Justice Hardwick | 7-day trial

A 2026 BC Supreme Court decision has varied a will that left 75% of a $490,000 estate to an unrelated couple and only 25% to the testator’s severely disabled adult son. Wols v. Funk, 2026 BCSC 404 is a useful illustration of how BC courts apply the wills variation provisions of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act (WESA) where a disabled child has been inadequately provided for.

Background: The Estate and the Parties

George Wols died in September 2021. His will directed that his only child, Gerry Wols, who has severe cognitive and physical disabilities receive the lesser of $120,000 or half the residue of the estate, with the remainder going equally to Mary and Ewald Funk, a couple unrelated to George who had originally been engaged as paid housekeepers.

Gerry, now 64, has global developmental delay, autism spectrum disorder, and bipolar affective disorder. He has never lived independently or managed his own finances. He uses a wheelchair and has recently developed dysphagia, requiring a supervised modified diet. At the time of trial, Gerry was living at the Rosewood Group Home in Armstrong, BC, where his PWD and OAS benefits cover shelter, food, and basic personal care -nothing beyond that.

The Funks, in their late 70s and early 80s, began their relationship with the Wols family when Mrs. Funk was engaged as a paid housekeeper in 2006. After George’s wife died in 2014, the Funks assisted with George’s affairs under a Power of Attorney and received a $300/month stipend from George’s account for their help. The relationship was genuine, but it was compensated. 

The Wills Variation Claim Under WESA s. 60

Gerry’s litigation guardian, the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT), applied to vary George’s will under s. 60 of WESA, which permits the court to order adequate provision from an estate where a will fails to make adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of a will-maker’s spouse or children.

The governing test comes from the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Tataryn v. Tataryn Estate, [1994] 2 SCR 807: courts ask objectively what a judicious parent, acting in accordance with contemporary legal and moral norms, would have done. Testamentary autonomy is a recognized value, but it yields to the extent necessary to make provision that is adequate, just and equitable for a child.

Three principles were central to the court’s analysis in Wols v. Funk:

Receipt of government benefits is not a defence to a WESA claim. A testator’s moral obligation to a disabled child is not discharged by the availability of public funding, which is in any event not guaranteed to continue.

The standard is not bare subsistence. The question under WESA is whether provision is adequate, just and equitable -not simply whether a child can survive on existing resources.

Moral obligations to non-family members are irrelevant to the wills variation analysis. WESA recognizes obligations owed only to a spouse or children. The Funks’ relationship with George, however genuine, carries no weight against Gerry’s claim.

Courts have also consistently recognized an enhanced moral obligation toward a disabled child, relative to the more attenuated obligation owed to an independent adult child.

The Decision

Justice Hardwick found the relevant factors weighed clearly in Gerry’s favour. George raised Gerry for 47 years. There was no estrangement or misconduct. Gerry lives at subsistence level with unmet needs that modest additional resources would meaningfully address. The Funks were compensated for their assistance to George and have no relationship with Gerry.

The will was varied to split the estate 80% to Gerry and 20% to the Funks.

Key Takeaways for Estate Planning and Litigation in BC

• A will that substantially favours unrelated beneficiaries over a disabled child is highly vulnerable to variation under WESA s. 60.
• Government funding received by a disabled child does not reduce a will-maker’s moral obligation or the strength of a wills variation claim.
• Courts apply an enhanced moral obligation standard where the claimant child has a disability.
• Contributions made by non-family beneficiaries, even genuine ones, are legally irrelevant to the wills variation analysis – though they may inform the court’s discretion in determining how much testamentary autonomy to preserve.