By Esther S.J. Oh and Jefe Olagunju

The Supreme Court of British Columbia’s recent decision in Maurer Estate (Re), offers important guidance for charities, and donors seeking to structure charitable gifts. Erna Wine Maurer (“Erna”) passed away in 2020, leaving a Will dated June 21, 2019. The Will directed her trustee, Solus Trust Company Limited (“Solus”), to distribute the residue of her estate in accordance with a Letter of Wishes signed the same day. The Letter of Wishes listed 15 charities and set out proportions for distribution. Her adult children challenged the enforceability of the Letter of Wishes, arguing they should inherit the residue.

Article 4 of the Will made provision for the remainder of Erna’s estate. Article 4.1(a) designated Solus as the Trustee, Article 4.1 (b) provided that the Trustee is to distribute the remainder of Erna’s property among charitable and non-charitable organizations and individuals identified by Erna in her most recent Letter of Wishes. Article 4.1(c) addressed situations where an identified organization or individual in the Letter of Wishes had undergone changes, granting the Trustee sole discretion to pay any share to the successor organization.

Article 4.1(d) dealt with situations where an identified organization or individual in the Letter of Wishes had ceased to operate or exist, granting the Trustee sole discretion to redirect the share to another organization that “…most closely resembles the organization or individual undertaking particular charitable work which I originally intended to benefit and which is in keeping with my charitable intentions and the spirt of the original charitable gift as it is my intention to distribute the remainder of my property among charitable and non-charitable organizations and individuals undertaking particular charitable work for general charitable purposes.”

Article 4.1(e) provided that if no Letter of Wishes was found among Erna’s personal papers, the Trustee was to distribute the remainder of Erna’s property “…in such amounts as the Trustee decides are appropriate among those charitable and non-charitable organizations and individuals undertaking particular charitable work to which I have made charitable donations of more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00 CDN Funds) as documented on my tax returns filed in Canada and the United States for the five (5) years immediately prior to my death.”

Key Issues Considered by the Court include:

1. Precatory Language – The Court rejected arguments that the Letter of Wishes was “precatory” (merely a non-binding wish). When read with Article 4 of the Will, Erna’s testamentary intentions were clear and specific.
2. Pour-Over Clause – The Court found Article 4 was not a pour-over clause since it did not transfer estate property into an existing inter vivos trust. The Letter of Wishes only applied after death.
3. Incorporation by Reference – The Court held the Letter of Wishes could not be formally incorporated into the Will, as Erna intentionally chose a structure that allowed her to amend the Letter without re-executing her Will.
4. Application of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13 (“WESA”) ss. 58, 46, and 59 – The Court declined to cure the Letter of Wishes as part of the Will under s. 58, noting it was not a “fixed and final” expression of Erna’s intentions. Section 46 did not apply, since Article 4 was a direction rather than a gift. Rectification under s. 59 was also denied, as the Letter of Wishes approach was deliberate, not an error.
5. Half-Secret Trust – The Court held no half-secret trust was created because the necessary communication requirements were not met at the time the Will was executed.
6. Charitable Trust – Ultimately, the Court concluded that the residue of Erna’s estate was held on a valid charitable trust for the benefit of the organizations listed in the Letter of Wishes. The Court carefully reviewed each of the 15 beneficiaries to confirm their charitable status or purpose. Even where an entity appeared non-charitable, the stated purpose of the gift was charitable.

Courts are willing to give effect to a donor’s wishes, where there is a clear charitable intent, even if legal mechanisms are imperfect. Flexible structures, such as letters of wishes, create risks if they are not carefully integrated into the Will. A charitable trust will not fail for uncertainty, provided the property is devoted to charitable objects. Charities should encourage donors to seek legal advice to avoid ambiguity and litigation.

Maurer Estate (Re) underscores that while formalities matter, courts prioritize giving effect to genuine charitable intent. For charities, the case is a reminder of the importance of clarity in estate planning and the resilience of charitable trusts as a mechanism for protecting philanthropic gifts.

​Read the August 2025 Charity & NFP Law Update