This bill replaces the old Part IV of the Probate Act with a standalone Intestate Succession Act that sets out who gets an estate when someone dies without a will. It defines core terms, fixes an order of priority among spouses, descendants and more remote relatives, and moves technical rules — such as how shares are calculated and how posthumous children are treated — into primary statute form.
The Act is designed to reduce ambiguity in everyday estate administration: it clarifies when a surviving spouse takes the whole estate, establishes statutory shares where children exist, treats advancements and posthumous births expressly, and authorizes regulatory detail (including a prescribed monetary threshold). For lawyers, executors and family members this changes default outcomes and administrative steps when a will is absent.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates a detailed hierarchy for intestate distribution (spouse, descendants, parents, grandparents, etc.), prescribes per‑stirpes distribution among descendants, and gives the spouse a statutory priority amount and a security (charge) on the estate when certain descendants are not also the spouse’s descendants. It also excludes separated or cohabiting spouses in specific circumstances and preserves provincial law for land located in PEI.
Who It Affects
Estate lawyers, probate clerks and the Estates Section of the Supreme Court will implement and interpret the new rules; surviving spouses and descendants (including blended‑family claimants) will see changes to default shares; executors and administrators will face new duties around calculating charges and valuing advancements; the provincial government could receive escheated estates in the absence of heirs.
Why It Matters
It changes the default distribution outcomes that many estate plans assume, creating immediate practical consequences for estate‑planning advice, family disputes, and probate workflow. The regulatory power to set a prescribed amount means future administrative and economic consequences can be altered by regulation rather than primary legislation.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act begins by putting commonly used definitions into the statute (court, descendant, estate, net value, spouse and will) and limits its application to deaths that occur after it comes into force; the old rules continue to apply to earlier deaths. It also states that court orders under the Dependants of a Deceased Person Relief Act can override the distribution rules here, signalling how support claims will interact with intestacy outcomes.
When someone dies intestate and has a surviving spouse but no descendants, the statute gives the spouse the entire estate. If both a spouse and descendants survive, the bill distinguishes two situations: where all descendants are also descendants of the spouse, and where one or more descendants are not the spouse’s descendants.
In the latter scenario the spouse receives a fixed statutory amount (to be set by regulation) as a first priority secured by a charge on the estate; after payment of that amount the remainder is divided so that with a single child the spouse takes half the residue, and with multiple children the spouse takes one‑third of the residue. After the spouse’s portion is taken, anything left is distributed among descendants in a per‑stirpes manner.If there is no surviving spouse, the Act sets out a multi‑tier fallback: descendants inherit first; if none, then parents equally; failing that, descendants of parents; then grandparents or their descendants; and then great‑grandparents or their descendants; if no eligible relatives exist at all, the estate escheats to the provincial government under PEI’s Escheats Act.
The Act short‑circuits extremely remote claims by deeming persons of the fifth degree or more to have predeceased the intestate, while preserving descendants’ inheritance rights even if they are beyond that degree. The statute also handles commonly litigated detail: an inter vivos advancement is brought into account against a descendant’s share (with the claimant bearing the onus of proof unless acknowledged in writing), children conceived before death but born after the intestate inherit as if born in the lifetime, and any property left undisposed by will is treated as intestate property for distribution purposes.The legislation contains specific exclusions for spouses who have been living separate and apart for more than two years, who are opposing parties in Divorce Act or Family Law Act proceedings, or who are bound by an order or agreement that appears to finalize property issues; a spouse who has reconciled before death remains entitled.
For immovable property located in PEI, the Act applies PEI law even if the decedent was resident elsewhere. Finally, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations including setting the prescribed amount used to calculate the spouse’s priority and other administrative details, and the bill expressly repeals the prior statutory scheme it replaces.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill gives a surviving spouse a statutory priority amount (to be prescribed by regulation) and a charge on the estate for that amount when some descendants are not descendants of the spouse.
If the estate exceeds the prescribed amount and the intestate leaves one child and a spouse, the spouse receives the prescribed amount plus one‑half of the residue; if there are multiple children, the spouse receives the prescribed amount plus one‑third of the residue.
Where there is no surviving spouse, the Act ranks heirs in order: descendants first, then parents, then descendants of parents, then grandparents (and their descendants), then great‑grandparents (and their descendants), with estates escheating to the Crown if no one is entitled.
The Act treats advancements as part of the distributable estate: an advancement equal to or exceeding a descendant’s statutory entitlement excludes that descendant from further share; if less, the legacy share is reduced by the advancement and the claimant bears the onus of proving the advancement unless it was recorded in writing.
The spouse takes no share if the couple had been living separate and apart for more than two years, were opposing parties in Divorce Act or Family Law Act proceedings, are bound by an order or agreement that finalizes property issues, or if the spouse was cohabiting in a spousal relationship with another person at the time of death.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions, temporal application and court primacy
This part sets foundational rules: it defines key terms such as “net value,” “descendant,” and “spouse,” and limits the Act to deaths after proclamation, while preserving the old regime for earlier deaths. It also makes clear that orders under the Dependants of a Deceased Person Relief Act can alter the statutory distribution — a reminder that support claims run ahead of pure intestacy entitlements in practice.
When the spouse takes all and when a statutory share applies
Section 3 is the simple case: a surviving spouse with no descendants takes the entire estate. Section 4 divides the mixed family situation into two branches: if all descendants are shared with the spouse the spouse takes everything; if not, the spouse is paid a prescribed amount secured by a charge and then receives either half or one‑third of the residue depending on whether there is one child or multiple children. The mechanics force executors to value the estate, prioritize payment to the spouse, and implement the statutory charge.
Order of heirs and per‑stirpes distribution
Section 5 sets the multi‑tier fallback when no spouse survives, moving from descendants to parents to increasingly remote kin and ultimately to escheat. The Act cuts off very remote claims by deeming fifth‑degree relatives as predeceased, and section 6 specifies per‑stirpes distribution: shares are divided by the number of surviving members in the nearest generation and passed down to representation if a member has died — language designed to reduce ad hoc court determinations about shares.
Advancements counted, valuation rules and posthumous births
Section 7 treats inter vivos advancements as part of the distributable estate: an advancement either fully offsets a descendant’s share or reduces it, with statutory rules for valuing the advancement and placing the onus of proof on the claimant unless there is written acknowledgment. Section 8 makes clear that children conceived before death but born after inherit as if alive at death — a common source of dispute resolved proactively here.
When a spouse is disqualified
Section 10 lays out concrete conditions disqualifying a spouse: two years’ separation under the Family Law Act, being opposing parties in Divorce Act or Family Law Act proceedings, or being parties to an order or agreement that effectively finalizes property division. Reconciliation that is subsisting at death revives the spouse’s entitlement; conversely cohabitation with another person at death also disqualifies the spouse — a bright‑line set of rules likely to see litigation over factual thresholds.
Territorial rule for land, regulatory power and repeal of prior scheme
The Act declares that immovable property situated in PEI is governed by PEI law regardless of the decedent’s residence, grants the Lieutenant Governor in Council regulation‑making power (including prescribing the monetary amount used in section 4), repeals Part IV of the Probate Act, and allows proclamation commencement. Those points create a short list of implementation tasks for government and probate offices (drafting regulations, transitional guidance, and updating forms and court processes).
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
- Surviving spouses in many common scenarios — the statutory priority amount plus a secured charge and a one‑half or one‑third share (depending on children) protects a surviving partner’s immediate financial position and creates a clear, enforceable claim against the estate.
- Children and lineal descendants — per‑stirpes language guarantees representation and reduces dispute over which branch of a family takes a share, which benefits both adult children and their descendants in cases of predeceased children.
- Probate judges and registry staff — clearer statutory text on degrees of kinship, cut‑offs for remote relatives, and written rules on advancements and posthumous births should reduce discretionary litigation and speed routine administrations.
- Estate lawyers and planners — the statute’s clarity lets advisers give definitive, statute‑based advice about likely intestacy outcomes and plan proactively (e.g., drafting wills or advising on cohabitation/separation effects).
- The provincial treasury — where no eligible heirs exist the estate escheats to the Crown under the Escheats Act, giving the province a definitive path for ownerless property
Who Bears the Cost
- Executors and estate administrators — must calculate the prescribed amount, establish and enforce a charge for the spouse, value advancements and possibly defend disputes about onus of proof, increasing administrative steps and potential legal costs.
- Blended‑family descendants who are not also the spouse’s descendants — the spouse’s statutory priority can reduce the residue available to children, particularly in estates close to the prescribed threshold.
- Separated spouses who have reconciled only informally — the Act requires evidence of subsisting reconciliation, creating factual disputes and potentially excluding people who consider themselves reunited but lack clear proof.
- Small estates and creditors — giving a spouse a priority amount plus charge may consume limited assets and alter creditor recovery prospects, especially where administration costs and funeral expenses have already diminished net value.
- The provincial government initially — the government must draft, consult on and implement regulations, update probate procedures and possibly handle transitional claims relating to estates in progress at commencement
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing protection for a surviving spouse against preserving children’s inheritance rights in blended and modern family contexts. The statute favors spousal security (a prescribed priority amount plus a charge and a guaranteed share of residue) to prevent immediate hardship, but that protection can substantially reduce what descendants receive — particularly in smaller estates or where children are not also the spouse’s children. Legislators opted for a rule that can be tuned by regulation, trading legislative certainty for executive flexibility, which solves some distribution inequities quickly but may shift contested value decisions into later administrative or judicial arenas.
The Act delegates a critical variable — the prescribed amount that determines whether the spouse gets the whole estate or a priority plus residue split — to regulation. That delegation creates a moving target: a modest regulatory number will leave more estates split among children, while a higher number will protect more surviving spouses.
Because the statute allows the Lieutenant Governor in Council to change the amount (including different amounts for different periods), executors and advisers face uncertainty until regulations land, and those regulations can materially alter distribution patterns without further legislative debate.
The combination of a statutory charge in favour of the spouse and the requirement to pay a prescribed amount first raises practical priority questions in estates with secured creditors or multiple charges. The bill does not rank that spousal charge against registered security interests or outline timing and enforcement mechanics, so executors will likely encounter contested priority litigation.
The onus rule for advancements — claimant must prove the advance unless it was acknowledged in writing — is sensible, but it will import evidentiary fights into many estates, particularly where family transfers were informal. Finally, the Act’s bright‑line disqualification rules for separated or cohabiting spouses reduce uncertainty but shift disputes into contested factual inquiries (what counts as two years’ separation; whether an agreement 'appears to finalize' affairs).
Courts will be asked to resolve those thresholds for years after commencement.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.