Bill 35 makes two kinds of changes to New Brunswick’s Probate Court Act: targeted corrections to the French-language headings and wording around section 75.1, and a substantive repeal-and-replace of section 1 of Schedule A that sets the formula for the tax payable in connection with certain probate grants and approvals. The language edits clarify which grants are taxed and that approvals of accounts (and related services) are included.
The measure is consequential for estate executors, probate counsel, and courts because it replaces the Act’s fee schedule with a new tiered formula and fixes how the French text reads. That combination reduces linguistic ambiguity in the statute while resetting how the provincial probate tax will be calculated and collected on affected grants and account approvals.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill revises French headings and wording in section 75.1 to clarify which grants and approvals trigger the provincial probate tax and replaces section 1 of Schedule A with a new fee formula that determines the tax owed on a grant or a part of an estate being administered. It also standardizes a French phrasing change in the schedule heading.
Who It Affects
Estate administrators (executors and administrators), probate lawyers and accountants, and the Probate Court registry staff who calculate and collect fees. Beneficiaries and estate planning advisors will see the downstream financial impact when probate is sought or accounts are approved.
Why It Matters
The bill combines statutory-language clarity with a new numerical fee framework, changing how and when the probate tax is calculated and increasing the need for precise fee calculation and court practice updates. For professionals, it alters estate administration cost forecasting and may affect decisions about when to apply for grants or to seek account approvals.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Although several amendments target the French version of the Act, the bill is not purely linguistic housekeeping. The changes to section 75.1’s French text tighten the statute’s description of taxable transactions: they explicitly list which kinds of grants are subject to the tax and make clear that approvals of accounts — along with their attendant services — are included.
The text also carves out certain kinds of grants from taxation by naming them as excluded categories in the French version.
Operationally, the statute applies the tax to either an entire estate or to the “part of the estate being administered.” That phrase means the fee can attach not only to full grants of probate or administration but also to partial administrations where only a segment of the estate is being processed through the court. The bill preserves that structure, which requires practitioners to identify which portion of the estate is the basis for the calculation when multiple grants or phases of administration are involved.The Schedule A replacement establishes the legal mechanism by which the tax amount is determined for any taxable grant or account approval: it sets a tiered approach (a fixed minimum, a middle tier with a per‑increment rate, and a higher tier with a larger per‑increment rate) and uses a “per $1,000 or part of $1,000” rounding rule.
That rounding rule produces discrete step increases at each $1,000 boundary and is legally decisive when calculating the payable amount. Practically, the court registry will need to update fee tables and calculation tools and ensure forms and guidance reflect both the French wording changes and the new calculation method.The bill contains no express transitional or retrospective clause: it replaces statutory text and the schedule but does not state an effective date within the body of the amendments.
That omission means questions may arise about when the new formula takes effect relative to ongoing estates and pending applications, and the court will likely need administrative direction to apply the new schedule consistently.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends the French wording of section 75.1 to specify that the estate pays the tax in Annex A for each grant of probate or administration that is not a special or restricted grant, not a supplementary reseal, and not a letters of administration for bonis non administratis.
The bill explicitly includes “each approval of accounts, including related services” as a taxable event under section 75.1(1)(b).
For taxable grants under paragraph 75.1(1)(a) the new Schedule A sets a fixed charge of $200 on estates (or administered parts) valued at $20,000 or less.
For estates (or parts) valued above $20,000 but not over $100,000 the Schedule A charge is $200 plus $5 per $1,000 (or part thereof) above $20,000; for amounts over $100,000 it is $600 plus $15 per $1,000 (or part thereof) above $100,000.
The Schedule A formula uses a ‘per $1,000 or part of $1,000’ rounding rule, meaning any fractional $1,000 increases are billed as the next full $1,000 increment.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Replace French heading before section 75.1
This short provision swaps the French heading that precedes section 75.1, replacing “Impôt payable” with “Impôt à payer.” That change is stylistic but important: it aligns phrasing with how the statute describes the tax as an obligation to be paid rather than a description of a concept. For bilingual interpretation this reduces the risk that a drafting inconsistency will be read to change the substantive scope of the tax.
Amend French text of section 75.1 (scope and wording)
This subsection rewrites parts of the French-language text of 75.1(1) and its paragraph layout. It clarifies that the estate pays the Annex A tax for specified events, replaces the previous paragraph a) and b) wording, and adjusts subsection (2) to use the phrase “à payer.” The practical outcome is clearer statutory language about which grants are covered and an explicit inclusion of account approvals as taxable, reducing ambiguity for registries and counsel who rely on the French text.
Adjust French heading for Schedule A
This provision modifies the French heading that appears before section 1 of Schedule A, changing the wording to ‘IMPÔT À PAYER EN APPLICATION DE’. The result is consistent bilingual labeling of the schedule and avoids a mismatch between the heading and the operative text amended by the bill.
Repeal and replace Section 1 of Schedule A (new tax formula)
This is the core substantive change: the bill repeals the existing section 1 of Schedule A and substitutes a three-tier fee formula that determines the tax for taxable grants and administered parts of estates. The provision prescribes a fixed charge at the lowest tier, a modest incremental rate in a middle band, and a higher incremental rate above that band; it also specifies that increments are calculated on a ‘per $1,000 or part of $1,000’ basis. The mechanics require courts and registries to adopt the new numeric table for calculating tax amounts on applicable filings.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Executors of small estates: estates with low gross values gain predictability because the statute imposes a fixed charge for values at or below the specified low-tier threshold, simplifying calculations and reducing administrative dispute over small sums.
- Probate registry staff: clearer French wording reduces bilingual interpretation questions and should cut down on requests for clarification, easing administrative burden.
- Estate planners and lawyers: a defined tiered formula and an explicit inclusion of account approvals let advisors model probate costs more reliably when advising clients on estate‑planning choices.
Who Bears the Cost
- Estates with values just above $1,000 boundaries: because the rule bills on a ‘per $1,000 or part thereof’ basis, many estates will face a step increase at small increments, effectively raising the effective marginal fee for fractional increases above thresholds.
- Executors and administrators: they must apply the new calculation method and may need legal or accounting help to determine whether parts of an estate are separately taxable, increasing professional costs in some cases.
- Court administration and IT budgets: registries must update fee schedules, calculation tools, forms, and public guidance; those implementation costs fall on the province unless separately funded.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between legal clarity and practical fairness: the bill improves statutory clarity (especially in the French text) and gives the province a straightforward tiered fee mechanism, but that same mechanism — fixed thresholds plus coarse rounding — can produce abrupt fee jumps that may feel unfair to estates near breakpoints and lacks built‑in adjustments for inflation or phased administrations.
Two implementation tensions stand out. First, the bill mixes language-only amendments (French headings and phrasing) with a clear numeric change to the fee schedule.
When a statute is edited across languages, courts can face arguments that a translation tweak has substantive effect; practitioners should watch for any challenges that attempt to read the French amendments as changing the scope beyond the explicit Schedule A replacement. Second, the formula’s use of fixed thresholds and per‑$1,000 rounding creates discontinuities: relatively small increases in estate value can trigger disproportionate increases in the payable tax because of the “or part of $1,000” rule, and the statute contains no indexing mechanism to adjust thresholds for inflation over time.
There are also administrative gaps the bill does not address. It contains no express effective date or transitional rules, leaving open whether the new schedule applies to applications already in process.
The bill also does not define how to apportion the tax when multiple grants (for separate parts of an estate) are sought simultaneously versus sequentially, which could prompt inconsistent registry practices or litigation over the proper tax base for segmented administrations.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.