Miller v Miller ( 1987) 14 BCLR (2d) 42 at pa 451, and approved by other cases such as Friak v Pilon 2012 BCSC 528 state that claims against deceased persons must be approached by the courts ” with the most careful scrutiny and indeed at the outset with some suspicion”. This was most recently applied in Wharton v McMinigal Estate 2014 BCCA 434
Miller at page 451 states:
Despite the repeal, it seems reasonable that a court should require a high standard of proof from a person who claims he is owed a sum of money by way of a debt due him from a deceased individual. This is because the deceased cannot, of course, appear in court and present his or her side of the argument.
The only evidence that can be introduced in most instances is the evidence of the survivor. Support for the idea that a court must view this kind of evidence with care comes from a decision of Rae J. in Kong v. Kong, 14 B.C.L.R. 357,  6 W.W.R. 673, 5 E.T.R. 67 (S.C.). He describes the requirement of adequate proof as a rule of practice which a court should follow as a consequence of the repeal of s. 11 of the Evidence Act. At pp. 361-62 His Lordship said this: