Author:
Estate disputes can quickly become complicated, especially when family property, inheritance rights, and competing claims all collide. That is exactly what happened in Dhanda (Re), 2026 BCSC 819, where the Supreme Court of British Columbia was asked to step into a family fight over a valuable Richmond property.
What makes this case interesting is that the judge did not try to solve the whole dispute right away. Instead, he made temporary, practical orders to hold things together until the bigger question—who owns the property—could be decided at trial.
What was the dispute about? The case centred on a 5-acre family property in Richmond, B.C. The land had been connected to the Dhanda family since 1986. Mukhtiar “Mike” Dhanda was the registered owner when he died unexpectedly in 2022 at age 44. He died without a Will. In that situation, the law normally sets out how the estate is divided, with the spouse receiving a larger first share and the children sharing the rest.
Mike’s common-law spouse, Tiena Hill, had already been legally recognized as his widow after earlier court proceedings. On that basis, she and Mike’s two teenage sons, Jayden and Jordan, would normally inherit from his estate. But Mike’s mother, Gian Kaur Dhanda, said the property should not be part of the estate at all. She claimed that although she transferred the title to Mike in 2018, she did not mean to gift the property to him. In legal terms, she says the property was held in a resulting trust for her. If she succeeds at trial, the property will go back to her and would not be divided as part of Mike’s estate.
The family split into opposing sides. Tiena wanted the property to stay in Mike’s estate so she could share in its value. Gian, along with other members of the Dhanda family, took the opposite position. Mike’s sons also ended up supporting Gian’s claim through their litigation guardians. As a result, Tiena was left on one side of the dispute, while the rest of the family largely stood together on the other.
What did Tiena want? By early 2026, the trust claim over the property still had not gone to trial. Tiena asked the court for temporary help. She wanted the court to remove the neutral estate administrator, appoint her as the new administrator, and give her exclusive possession of the property right away.
- No one opposed Tiena becoming the new estate administrator. Under British Columbia law, a spouse usually has priority to administer an estate when there is no Will.
- BUT Gian and the rest of the family opposed giving Tiena control of the property before trial. They said Jordan, Mike’s teenage son, was living there to attend school and should not be forced to move. Gian also offered to keep paying the taxes, insurance, utilities, and other costs of the property while the case was ongoing.
What did the judge decide? In May 2026, Justice Ross made temporary orders designed to keep things stable until trial. Here is what he did:
- Tiena became the estate administrator: The court removed the previous administrator, Marie-Louise Fast, and appointed Tiena instead.
- The outgoing administrator’s fees were protected: Ms. Fast had about $120,000 in unpaid fees. The judge ordered that Tiena, the two sons, and Gian were all responsible for ensuring those fees were paid. He also allowed the fees to be secured against the property, so Ms. Fast would eventually be paid no matter who wins the case.
- Gian kept temporary possession of the property: The judge did not give Tiena the right to move back in right away. Instead, Gian was allowed to keep temporary control of the property, as long as she continued to pay for its upkeep, taxes, insurance, and utilities. If she fails to do that, Tiena can ask the court to revisit the issue.
Why did the court take this approach? Justice Ross made it clear that this hearing was not about finally deciding who should win. It was about finding a workable temporary solution. Normally, an estate administrator would control estate assets. But here, the people who might benefit from the estate were divided, and the court also had to consider the practical impact of forcing Jordan, a teenager, to leave the property during the school year. In the judge’s view, keeping the current arrangement in place for the moment would cause less disruption.
The judge also noted that the property’s main value was in the land itself, not in short-term rental income. Because Gian agreed to pay the carrying costs, he was satisfied that the property could be preserved until trial without harming the estate. However, it did mean that the administrator of the Estate would NOT have control over the essential asset of the Estate.
Why this case matters This case is a good example of how courts sometimes deal with complicated family and estate disputes in real life. Instead of trying to force a perfect answer too early, the judge focused on preserving the property, reducing disruption, and making sure the case could move forward in an orderly way. Tiena was given control over the estate’s legal administration, Gian kept temporary possession of the property, and the former administrator’s unpaid fees were protected.
The main issue—whether the property truly belongs to Mike’s estate or is held in trust for his mother—still must be decided at trial. Until then, the court’s message is a practical one: when a family dispute becomes too tangled for an immediate final answer, the best interim solution may simply be the one that keeps the peace and protects the asset.
If you are dealing with an estate dispute, LK Law can assist. Please reach out to any member of our estate litigation team to discuss your situation.
This article is intended to be an overview of the law and is for informational purposes only. Readers are cautioned that this article does not constitute legal or professional advice and should not be relied on as such. Rather, readers should obtain specific legal advice in relation to the issues they are facing.
