Court settles farm chores dispute
Descendants alleged they were underpaid for their work at McDonald homestead
The B.C. Court of Appeal has settled a tawdry squabble among the great grandchildren of Samuel McDonald, a Cariboo gold-rush pioneer and founder of the eponymous farm on Nicomen Island.
In a decision released this week, the high bench dismissed the claims of the great grandchildren who said they deserved a larger inheritance for performing childhood chores after the renowned historic farm was given to their brother.
“In general, we see the performance of chores by children in a family as positive,” wrote Justice Harvey Groberman, supported by colleagues Lauri Ann Fenlon and David Harris.
“Such work fosters a sense of responsibility and of family. Ideally, in doing chores, children gain valuable work experience in an environment that is not overly competitive or taxing. They can learn and experience the importance of doing tasks for others without expecting monetary compensation.”
While the family lived frugally, there was no suggestion of economic deprivation nor was it suggested the children were treated by the parents as “profit centres” or exploited.
Their great-grandfather arrived in the province while it was still a colony in the mid1800s.
A young man from California, McDonald and thousands of others from around the globe couldn’t resist the siren call of gold discovered in the Cariboo.
He didn’t mine a vein; his wealth came from operating a wagon-train taking prospectors to towns in the goldfields such as Barkerville — the wild abode of some 5,000 at its peak — about 80 km east of Quesnel.
In 1865, he bought roughly 300 acres on the Fraser River island between Dewdney and Deroche, and his farm came to be known as “McDonald Landing.”
Sam’s son, Billy, inherited the farm in 1908.
Billy and his wife left the farm to their son Samuel Alexander McDonald, though by the late 1950s, it had been reduced to about 100 acres because of river erosion.
On Sept. 3, 1958, Sam Alexander married neighbour Sylvia Granados and they had four kids — Julie, Robert, Brian and Dean.
In 1968, the couple obtained from Sylvia’s mother an additional 30 acres. They were given title to the main farm by Sam’s mother in 1974.
In 1980-81, the McDonalds built a new home on the farm for Sam and Sylvia as well as Brian and Dean. Julie had moved away.
Robert, who was responsible for the herd and took care of nighttime emergencies, moved into the old farmhouse close to the barn.
In 1983, Sam and Sylvia incorporated McDonald Landing Farms Ltd., which acquired their assets.
The company bought another 10 acres nearby in 1989 and in 1996 it acquired the 40-acre Granados farm, where Sylvia grew up.
When Sam and Sylvia wrote wills in 1996 that put the farm into Robert’s hands, he was their only child still working full time on the farm.
Julie had lived away for years; Dean also had left to pursue a career.
Brian was disabled as a result of a 1989 injury working on the farm. Though he lived there, his ability to do meaningful work was limited. Sam died in Mission in June 2005 at 82.
In 2009, after a dispute with Robert, Brian, for the first time, requested a copy of his parents’ wills and the secret Robert shared with them about the farm’s ownership was revealed.
Litigation followed when the other children realized their inheritances were limited to a small portion of redeemable preferred shares.
They claimed a right to be compensated for their childhood work, described by the court:
“Days began early and ended late. The herd of milk cows, originally 30 or so, required milking twice a day. The first milking occurred at approximately 5 a.m., while the second milking occurred at approximately 5 p.m. In between, there was much to be done. Cows needed feeding, machinery needed fixing and hay crops needed planting; then harvesting. All other manner of chores needed doing. Dairy farming was not then, nor is it now, an occupation for the faint of heart.”
The lower court judge supported them and made the award of $350,000 each.
That was brought to the Court of Appeal by Sylvia, which determined the lower court judge was wrong.
“A brief examination of the evidence and the judge’s findings demonstrates that the value of the property bequeathed to the plaintiffs in the 1996 wills (and in 2000 wills) vastly exceeded any possible benefit conferred by the plaintiffs on the defendants by virtue of unpaid chores performed as teenagers,” Groberman explained.
“At the date of trial, the farm assets were worth just over $12 million, but the farm also had liabilities (other than the liabilities to shareholders) of just over $1 million. The net value of the farm assets, then, was about $11 million. A 1.3 per cent entitlement to the farm assets, then, was worth only approximately $145,000, not the $350,000 awarded by the judge.”
Sylvia, who has terminal cancer, he added, in her current will gives “each of the plaintiffs 1/3 of the preferred shares, which represent an interest in the farm assets amounting to $907,000. It is apparent, then, that if Sylvia does not alter her will, the plaintiffs will receive considerably more money than the amount needed to compensate them for their unpaid labours.
“It seems unlikely that Sylvia will alter her will, as she has expressly told the plaintiffs that she is prepared to sign over the preferred shares to them immediately.”