Date: 20260114
Docket: T-4032-25
Citation: 2026 FC 46
Vancouver, British Columbia, January 14, 2026
PRESENT: Madam Associate Judge Kathleen Ring
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF CANADA
Plaintiff
and
THE ESTATE OF DAVID CHARLES BAKER
Defendant
ORDER
[1] This is a motion in writing brought on behalf of the Plaintiff, His Majesty the King (the “Crown”) seeking two Orders from the Court, one which is commonplace and one which is not. The first is an Order validating service of the Statement of Claim and this motion by providing notice by registered mail to David Charles Baker’s spouse, Sharon Baker (“Ms. Baker”). The second is an unusual Order that the proceeding be allowed to continue without representation from the Estate of David Charles Baker (the “Estate”) pursuant to Rule 113 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 (“Rules”).
[2] There is no record of any motion record or other response being received or filed by or on behalf of the Defendant, the Estate, in response to the Crown’s motion, within the time for doing so or at all, despite the spouse of the deceased, Ms. Baker, having been served with the Crown’s motion by registered mail on November 15, 2025, as described below.
[3] For the reasons that follow, I will grant the Crown’s motion on the terms set out in this Order.
- Background
[4] Some background is necessary to place the Crown’s motion in proper context. These facts are taken from the Affidavit of Mark De Luca sworn on October 24, 2025 and filed by the Crown in support of this motion (the “De Luca Affidavit”), as well as the Affidavit of Service of Kelsey Watson sworn on November 19, 2025 (the “Watson Affidavit”).
[5] On May 9, 2017, David Charles Baker applied in writing to the Canadian Canola Growers Association (“CCGA”) for an advance payment under the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, SC 1997, c 20 (“AMPA”) for the 2017-2018 crop year. The application was approved and Mr. Baker received an advance in the amount of $400,000 in 2017 (the “Advance Payment”).
[6] Mr. Baker did not make payment in full on the Advance Payment by the prescribed due date and was determined to be in default.
[7] On October 23, 2019, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food honoured the guarantee available under Section 23 of the AMPA for the Advance Payment and made payment to the CCGA in accordance with the terms of the guarantee. The Crown was then subrogated to the rights of the CCGA.
[8] After the date of subrogation, the Crown made numerous demands on Mr. Baker for payment between November 20, 2019 and April 2, 2024. Mr. Baker did not reply to any of the Crown’s demands.
[9] On June 27, 2024, Mr. Baker (hereinafter the “Deceased”) passed away, leaving his wife, Ms. Baker, and children Tricia, Curtis and Jessica. A copy of the Deceased’s obituary confirming the same is attached to the De Luca Affidavit.
[10] On December 3, 2024, the Crown sent a letter to the Estate of the Deceased, addressed to the mailing address of the Deceased and Ms. Baker, informing the Estate of the debt outstanding to the Crown and setting out payment options. The letter requests that if the Estate is unable to make payment in full, the Estate is to provide the name and contact information of the executor of the Estate, as the Crown will require a copy of the Death Certificate, the Last Will and Testament attached to the Grant of Probate or Letters of Administration, a statement outlining the value of the assets of the Estate at the date of death, and details of any distribution of assets that may have taken place to date.
[11] There is no evidence before the Court that anyone on behalf of the Estate responded to the Crown’s correspondence dated December 3, 2024.
[12] On February 21, 2025, counsel for the Crown sent another letter addressed to Ms. Baker and the Estate of the Deceased, requesting that they advise whether any steps were being taken to appoint an estate representative, and inquiring if the Estate intended to pay the debt owed by the Deceased. The Estate and Ms. Baker were advised that the Crown may take legal action against the Estate if no response was received within 30 days.
[13] Ms. Baker replied by email on March 25, 2025, enclosing a letter requesting that counsel for the Crown send her “the accounting entries” for the account with CCGA, along with more details/information on the mediation process. Her letter states she was “trying to work through this”.
[14] The next day, on March 26, 2025, counsel for the Crown sent email correspondence to Ms. Baker enclosing the information requested by her.
[15] Thereafter, on April 28, 2025 and May 21, 2025, counsel for the Crown sent two further follow up emails to Ms. Baker requesting an update on addressing the outstanding debt.
[16] No response was received from Ms. Baker.
[17] The De Luca Affidavit attests that the Estate has not yet been probated. The Affidavit includes email correspondence dated July 9, 2025 from the Registrar’s Office of the Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench in response to a request from counsel for the Crown, confirming that a province-wide search of the Surrogate Registry had been undertaken for “David Charles Barker – D.O.D. June 27, 2024” with negative results. Parenthetically, it is noted that the body of the email from the Registrar’s Office spelt the last name of the Deceased as “Barker” instead of “Baker”; however, this appears to have been a typographical error as the subject line on the Registry’s email clearly reads “BAKER – David Charles - Deceased”.
[18] The De Luca Affidavit also indicates that, apart from one small parcel of land valued at $4,300, the other real property owned by the Deceased was held in joint ownership with Ms. Baker, and that the Deceased’s name has now been removed from those land titles. According to the De Luca Affidavit, it is not clear whether the Estate has an interest in any personal property.
[19] On September 9, 2025, the Crown commenced the within legal proceeding in this Court by filing a Statement of Claim naming the Estate as the Defendant.
[20] The Statement of Claim and the Crown’s motion record on the present motion were sent to the Defendant Estate by sending the documents to Ms. Baker by Canada Post Priority Post to the address of P.O. Box 202, Wapella, SK, S0G 4Z0, which was the Deceased’s address. The package was confirmed to be delivered by Canada Post on November 15, 2025, accompanied by a scanned copy of Ms. Baker’s signature accepting delivery of the documents.
- Validation of Service of the Statement of Claim
[21] Rule 147 provides that the Court may validate service, if a document has been served in a manner that is not authorized by the Rules or by an order of the Court, “if it is satisfied that the document came to the notice of the person to be served or that it would have come to that person’s notice except for the person’s avoidance of service”.
[22] The record before the Court demonstrates that the Crown made several inquiries to Ms. Baker and to the Surrogate Registry to determine whether there is an executor or administrator of the Estate upon whom to serve the Statement of Claim. The responses received by the Crown point to the conclusion that neither Letters Probate or Letters of Administration have been sought from or issued by the Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench.
[23] In these circumstances, I find that it was both reasonable and appropriate for the Crown to serve the Statement of Claim and its motion record on the Defendant Estate by serving these documents by registered mail on the Deceased’s spouse, Ms. Baker.
[24] I am also satisfied, based on the Watson Affidavit sworn on November 19, 2025, that the Statement of Claim and the Crown’s motion record were delivered by Canada Post to Ms. Baker on November 15, 2025, when she signed for these documents.
[25] Accordingly, the Crown’s motion for an Order validating service of the Statement of Claim on the Estate in the manner described above shall be granted.
- Leave to Proceed Without Representation of the Estate
[26] The Crown also seeks an Order that this proceeding continue without representation from the Estate.
[27] Rule 113 of the Rules allows the Court to order that a proceeding continue without representation of the estate and reads as follows:
Where deceased has no representative
113 (1) Where a party to a proceeding is deceased and the estate of the deceased is not represented, the Court may appoint a person to represent the estate of the deceased or order that the proceeding continue without representation of the estate.
Notice
(2) Before making an order under subsection (1), the Court may require that notice be given to all persons who
have an interest in the estate of the deceased.
Absence de représentant
113 (1) Dans le cas où une partie à une instance est décédée et où la succession de celle-ci n’a pas de représentant, la Cour peut nommer une personne à titre de représentant de la succession ou ordonner la poursuite de l’instance sans qu’un représentant soit nommé.
Avis préalable
(2) Avant de rendre une ordonnance en vertu du paragraphe (1), la Cour peut exiger qu’un avis soit donné aux personnes qui ont un intérêt dans la succession de la personne décédée.
[28] Tacan v Canada, 2001 FCT 574 [Tacan] appears to be the only reported decision on Rule 113. On its facts, it is distinguishable because the moving party did not seek an Order dispensing with the requirement to have a representative for the Estate. Instead, a motion was brought on behalf of the plaintiffs for an order pursuant to Rules 113 and 114, allowing the elected Chief of the Sioux Valley First Nation to represent, and be the litigation guardian for, the estates of approximately twenty deceased veterans in an action against the Crown.
[29] However, Tacan is useful in articulating the basic requirements for an Order under Rule 113. Justice Lafrenière held at paragraph 12 that:
The onus is on a moving party to satisfy the Court that it is appropriate to grant the relief requested. Rule 113 sets out two conditions which must be met by the Plaintiffs before the Court can exercise its discretion. The first is that "a party to the proceeding is deceased" and the second is that "the estate of the deceased is not represented".
[30] Reaching back in time, Guimond v Canada, 1991 CanLII 13541 (FCTTD), [1991] 3 FC 254 appears to be the only case that mentions the predecessor to Rule 113 (Rule 1710 of the prior Federal Court Rules). Unfortunately, this case does not provide guidance on the application of Rule 113, as the opposing party consented to the portion of the motion seeking an order under Rule 1710.
[31] While there is a dearth of jurisprudence from this Court involving motions to dispense with representation of an estate, the Crown submits that other Canadian jurisdictions have provisions that are similar to Rule 113, and the courts in some of those jurisdictions have had occasion to rule on motions of the kind presently before the Court. I have reviewed the case law cited by the Crown, as well as some additional decisions referred to in that case law, involving motions for leave to proceed against unrepresented estates. Generally speaking, this jurisprudence reveals that motions to proceed without representation of the estate are discretionary in nature and highly fact-dependant: Home Equity Mortgage Corporation v Smith Estate, 2009 ABQB 309; Sloan v Fox Estate, 2011 ONSC 3747; Brita v Terry L. Napora Law Corp., 2016 BCSC 1476; Tayes v Snarr, 2021 BCSC 98; Buday v Buday et al, 2024 ONSC 3411; RBC v Trudel, 2025 SKKB 98.
[32] Turning to the facts of this case, I conclude that the Crown has satisfied the two conditions under Rule 113 as laid out in Tacan. The first condition is clearly met, as the person who is alleged in the Statement of Claim to have defaulted on repayment of a debt owed to the Crown – i.e., David Charles Baker – is deceased, as evidenced by the obituary exhibited to the De Luca Affidavit.
[33] As for the second condition, the search results from the Saskatchewan Surrogate Registry and Ms. Baker’s lack of response to the Crown’s repeated inquiries for confirmation on the existence of a Last Will and Testament and for the name of the executor of the Estate, collectively support the conclusion that the Estate is not represented by an executor or administrator. Had Letters Probate or Letters of Administration been issued by the Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench, Ms. Baker, as the Deceased’s spouse, surely would and should have notified the Crown, or arranged for the executor or administrator to do so, as she has actual knowledge that the Crown it is an alleged creditor of the Estate.
[34] While Rule 113(1) also allows the Court to appoint a person to represent the Estate when the above-noted conditions are satisfied, I decline to make such an Order in the present case for two reasons. First, there is no motion before the Court seeking such an Order. Second, there is no evidence before the Court that anyone is willing to act as the appointed representative. Had Ms. Baker responded to the motion and expressed her willingness to be appointed as the representative of the Estate for the purposes of this legal proceeding, the Court would have considered her request as she is the spouse of the Deceased. However, the material before the Court indicates that Ms. Baker chose not to file any response to the motion, despite being duly served with a copy of the Crown’s motion record.
[35] Rule 113(2) provides that the Court may require that notice be given to all persons who have an interest in the estate of a deceased person before making an order under Rule 113. In this case, there is no evidence before the Court that the Deceased had a Last Will and Testament, despite numerous inquiries being made by the Crown to determine the existence of such a document. Assuming that there is no Last Will and Testament, Ms. Baker, being the Deceased’s widow, would be the presumptive beneficiary of the estate under section 5 of The Intestate Succession Act, 2019, SS 2019, c I-13.2. Notice of this motion has been served on Ms. Baker. In the particular circumstances, I am satisfied that appropriate notice has been given under Rule 113(2).
[36] Accordingly, the Crown’s motion for an Order that this proceeding continue without representation from the Estate is granted.
[37] Neither party has sought their costs of this motion and so none shall be awarded: Exeter v Canada (Attorney General), 2013 FCA 134.
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
Service of the Statement of Claim and this motion on the Defendant, the Estate of David Charles Baker, by sending it by registered mail to the spouse of the Deceased, Sharon Lynn Baker, to her mailing address of P.O. Box 202, Wapella, Saskatchewan, S0G 4Z0, is hereby validated.
Service of the Statement of Claim on the Defendant Estate shall be deemed effective as of November 15, 2025, when the document was delivered by Canada Post to Ms. Baker.
The Registry is instructed to treat the Affidavit of Service of Kelsey Watson sworn on November 19, 2025, and already filed by the Registry on November 19, 2025, as proof of service of the Statement of Claim on the Defendant Estate.
The proceeding shall continue without representation of the Estate of David Charles Baker.
There shall be no order as to costs of this motion.
The Plaintiff shall forthwith, and by no later than January 21, 2026, serve a copy of this Order on Ms. Baker by sending it by regular mail to her mailing address set out in paragraph one above, and also by transmitting a copy of the Order to her email address as it appears in the Crown’s motion record, namely: s_baker@email.com.
blank
“Kathleen Ring”
blank
Associate Judge