Courts in British Columbia continue to evaluate when genetic testing should be used to resolve estate disputes. A recent Supreme Court of British Columbia decision in Morberg Estate (Re), 2025 BCSC 2265 provides important guidance on the evidentiary threshold required to compel DNA testing in the context of an intestacy dispute between adult siblings.

As blended families, donor-conceived individuals, and non-traditional parenting structures become more common, questions about biological parentage are arising with greater frequency in the administration and litigation of estates. The decision reflects a more cautious and privacy-focused approach to the use of genetic evidence.

Background

When Parentage Determines Entitlement Under WESA

In Morberg, the deceased died without a will. Two adult sisters were listed on his birth certificate. One applied for an order requiring the other to provide a DNA sample to challenge her entitlement as a descendant under section 23 of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act (WESA).

The application relied on:

• Alleged statements by both parents at the end of life
• Recollections from aligned family members
• Comments attributed to a hospital roommate
• A surreptitious recording made the day after the death
• An unanswered Facebook message

The respondent denied the allegation and relied on documentary records and the deceased’s lifetime treatment of her as his child.

The Court dismissed the application, finding that although DNA evidence can be relevant to parentage and entitlement, the evidentiary record did not justify compelling an adult to provide highly personal genetic information.

How Courts Use DNA Evidence in Estate Disputes

When DNA Evidence Plays a Role in Estate Litigation

DNA evidence may be relevant when entitlement turns on whether a person qualifies as a child or descendant under WESA. These issues typically arise in:

• Intestacy disputes under section 23
• Will's variation claims where parent child status determines standing

The decision confirms that DNA testing is not a routine step in estate disputes and requires a strong evidentiary basis.

The Threshold for Compelling DNA Testing

The court reaffirmed that it may order DNA testing under the Supreme Court Civil Rules when compelling circumstances exist. In Morberg, the evidence did not meet this standard.

Deficiencies included:

• Uncorroborated hearsay
• Inconsistent recollections
• Statements allegedly made during illness or cognitive decline
• Lack of independent corroboration
• Limited probative value of surreptitious recordings
• Social media silence that did not amount to an admission

Family rumours or suspicions were found insufficient to justify compelled genetic testing.

Balancing Parentage Evidence Against Privacy

Although a cheek swab is physically simple, the court emphasized the privacy implications of genetic data. DNA contains highly sensitive information, and individuals have limited control over how that information may be stored or accessed. These privacy considerations form part of the court’s analysis when determining whether testing is justified.

Practical Considerations for Estate Litigators and Advisors

The decision highlights several considerations for practitioners:

• Independent and reliable corroboration should be assessed before seeking DNA testing
• Documentary and lifetime conduct evidence may be more persuasive and less intrusive
• Cost consequences and family conflict should be evaluated early
• Parentage should be confirmed as legally determinative under WESA for the issue at hand

These considerations are particularly important in disputes arising within complex or blended families.

How Family Law Principles Shape Parentage Testing

Difference Between Parentage Testing in Estate and Family Contexts

In family law, DNA testing often arises when a child’s legal status affects ongoing parental obligations. Statutory presumptions and the best interests of the child guide those applications. Estate litigation does not engage this framework, and courts are more cautious when testing is sought between adults for inheritance purposes.

Privacy Considerations and Limits on Compelled Testing

The decision underscores that DNA is uniquely sensitive. Courts will not authorize testing based on speculation, inconsistent narratives, or incomplete evidence. Privacy concerns relate to both the collection of genetic material and the long-term implications for retaining such information.

Circumstances Affecting When Courts Will Order DNA Testing

Courts tend to authorize testing when:

• Parentage affects ongoing legal obligations
• Statutory presumptions apply
• Independent evidence raises legitimate uncertainty

Courts are less likely to order testing when:

• The parties are adults
• Evidence consists primarily of hearsay or rumours
• Long-standing family relationships may be disrupted
• The primary motivation appears to be financial reallocation

Implications for Modern Family Structures

As family structures evolve, courts will continue to consider the full context of relationships and intentions of the deceased. Morberg illustrates that DNA is only one element in determining identity and entitlement, and not necessarily the most persuasive one.

Broader Implications and Cross Practice Insight

Parentage issues in estate matters often intersect with family law considerations. Early planning can help avoid uncertainty, including through clear drafting, intentional recognition of parent child relationships, and documentation that reflects long-standing family dynamics.

When disputes arise, coordinated analysis across estate and family law may assist in determining whether DNA evidence is appropriate or whether alternative strategies better address privacy, reduce conflict, and align with the intentions of the deceased.

Families and advisors encountering parentage-related issues in an estate context may benefit from early legal guidance to assess available options and determine the most appropriate path forward.