ST LAWRENCE v ARSENAULT, 2026 ABKB 669

Adam Arsenault (the “Deceased”) died intestate in Texas in March 2019 and was survived by his two minor children (the “Children”), who resided in Alberta. His estate proceeds were administered by the Public Guardian and Trustee of Alberta, and the Deceased had a $300,000 life insurance policy that named the Deceased’s brother, as trustee (the “Applicant”). The Applicant and the Deceased’s father created a trust in British Columbia (the “Trust”), governed by British Columbia law, into which the life insurance proceeds and $41,625.95 raised by a GoFundMe account were deposited. The Children filed an Originating Application in the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta seeking to remove the Applicant as Trustee, compel a full accounting, and transfer the Trust assets to Alberta. The Applicant applied to strike or stay the Originating Application on the grounds that the Court lacked jurisdiction simpliciter or, alternatively, on the basis of forum non conveniens.

Justice Hartigan found that the Court had jurisdiction simpliciter pursuant to Rule 11.25(3). Under that Rule, a real and substantial connection to Alberta is presumed for claims relating to certain Alberta contracts, the administration of estates of persons ordinarily resident in Alberta, and breaches of equitable duties in Alberta. The Children bore the initial onus of establishing one or more objective presumptive connecting factors, after which the burden shifted to the Applicant to rebut the presumption of jurisdiction. The Court found multiple connecting factors. These included the Alberta insurance contract establishing the trusteeship, the administration of the Deceased’s estate and related GoFundMe funds in Alberta, and alleged breaches of equitable duties in Alberta. The Applicant failed to meet the evidentiary burden required to rebut the resulting presumption of jurisdiction.

The Applicant also argued that the Court should decline jurisdiction based on forum non conveniens but failed to establish that British Columbia was clearly the more appropriate forum. Although the Trustee and trust assets were located in British Columbia and the Trust contained a British Columbia governing-law clause, the Court gave these factors limited weight and found the risk of parallel proceedings or inconsistent Orders speculative. In contrast, the Children and their mother were located in Alberta, as was relevant evidence concerning the Children’s needs, the Deceased’s insurance contract and estate, and the creation and collection of the GoFundMe funds.

For these reasons, Hartigan J. held that the Applicant failed to demonstrate that British Columbia was clearly a more appropriate forum and dismissed the strike or stay Application.