Saskatchewan Estate Litigation Update: Vance (Re), 2021 SKQB 320

The recent decision in Vance (Re), 2021 SKQB 320, reminds us of the importance of keeping our wills updated.

The application in Vance was brought by De-Anna Lynn Bailey, in relation to the estate of her nephew, James Benjamin Gilbert Vance (“Deceased”).

Background

To understand the outcome in Vance, we need to understand the effect of s. 17 of the s. 17 of The Wills Act, 1996, SS 1996, c W-14.1. S. 17 was only recently repealed. Before March 2020 the provision provided as follows:

17(1)   A will is revoked when:

  1. the testator marries; or
  2. the testator has cohabited in a spousal relationship continuously for two years.

Revocation by marriage was a historical principle of law.  Previously, the law felt that, entering into a spousal relationship, either by cohabiting or formal act of marriage, was a significant step that changed the legal landscape of the person involved. As a result, the legislature had concluded that any prior testamentary disposition will not be considered valid in the face of the new spousal reality.

In Vance, the factual situation meant that the prior will made by the Deceased had been revoked by his common law relationship. The chronology ran as follows:

  1. The Deceased made his will in October 2004. In the will, De-Anna Lynn Bailey was named as the beneficiary of the Deceased’s estate;
  2. In 2012, the deceased Christina Laturnas began cohabiting in a spousal relationship;
  3. In 2014 (the second anniversary date of the commencement of the deceased’s cohabitation with Ms. Laturnas), the 2004 Will was deemed revoked by virtue of  17(1)(b) of the Act(as it then read);
  4. In January 2020, the deceased and Ms. Laturnas separated and were no longer living together;
  5. On March 16, 2020,  16(a)and 17 of the Act were repealed. However, the legislature did not specify that the repeal applied to wills already revoked by marriages or spousal relationships. Rather, the repeal appeared to only apply to future events; and
  6. On June 6, 2021, the deceased died.

Thus, the issue in Vance was primarily whether the amendment to s. 17 was retroactive, and whether the amendment could “revive” the 2004 Will.

Decision in Vance:

As the court held “the issue here is whether the amendments to the Act were retroactive, with the result that the 2004 will was never revoked at all or was revived.” (para 7)

Vance held that, regrettably for De-Anna Lynn Bailey, the repeal to s. 17 was not retroactive. The Court relied on the principle that when a legislature changes the law, that change will “only apply retroactively where the legislature has clearly indicated that it has weighed the benefits of retroactivity with its potential unfairness or disruption.”

The Court in Vance was being asked to turn back time and revive the Deceased’s 2004 will long after it has been deemed revoked. As the amendment to s. 17 was not retroactive, the Court did not have the power to do this. Simply put, the legislature did not explicitly indicate that the repeal to s. 17 was to operate retroactively.

Lessons:

Vance shows us that the amendment to s. 17 is not retroactive. While the result in Vance was legally correct, it was a harsh (and unfair) blow to De-Anna Lynn Bailey, who understandably felt that the Deceased truly wished her to inherit his estate.

Most non-lawyers are not aware of the issue of revocation by marriage. There was no evidence referenced in this decision, showing that the Deceased knew that his spousal relationship in 2014 had operated to revoke his 2004 will. As a result, the Deceased likely wished De-Anna Lynn Bailey to receive his property. Because of the technicality of revocation by marriage, this did not occur, and the intentions of the Deceased were not given effect to.

Vance is a reminder that all persons should have an updated will. Here, if the Deceased had kept his will updated after the ending of his relationship with Christina Laturnas, there would have been an updated testamentary document in place, reflecting his actual intentions. This is in no way to cast blame on the Deceased, as there are likely millions of Canadians who have a will which is out of date. Nevertheless, as Vance shows, the alternative may be a harsh one. 

Contacting a Lawyer on this Subject

James Steele’s preferred practise area is estate litigation, including will challenges, executor disputes, power of attorney issues, etc. Contact James Steele at 1-306-933-1338 or [email protected]. The above is for general information only, and not legal advice. Parties should always seek legal advice prior to taking action in specific situations.

Read more on our blog.

The Saskatchewan Estate Law blog is dedicated to providing practical, real-world information on Estate Law issues that affect Saskatchewan residents. The blog is written by RS lawyer, James Steele, whose practice focuses on estate litigation.

Related News and Articles

Correcting Mistakes in Wills

James Steele has contributed an article to the Estate Law Canada blog, a widely-read Canadian estate litigation blog, with over 6 million views. James wrote on the issue of fixing Wills, when erroneous wording is drafted by mistake. The piece can be read here.

read more

James Steele Contributes to Legal Sourcery Blog

James Steele has published a case comment on Legal Sourcery, the award-winning legal blog of the Law Society of Saskatchewan Library.  The post discusses the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Valard Construction Ltd. v Bird Construction Co. (2018 SCC 8), a...

read more

James Steele is Published in Statute Law Review

Congratulations to James Steele who has published a scholarly article in the Statute Law Review, an academic law journal published by the prestigious Oxford University Press. The focus of the journal is on the drafting and interpretation of statutes. James' article...

read more

Statutory Forebears

James Steele's article "Statutory Forebears: Legislative Evolution as a Means of Statutory Interpretation" to be published in upcoming issue of Statue Law Review.

read more

Anderson and Steele Present at SRPA Convention

The Saskatchewan Regional Parks Association (SRPA) represents the many and diverse regional parks throughout Saskatchewan.  Each year the SRPA holds conventions for the purpose of education and networking for the delegates. This year at the convention held in...

read more

Sinclair and Steele Present STLA Seminar

The Saskatchewan Trial Lawyers Association (STLA)  offer timely and topical telephone seminars to their members.  On April 20th, 2017, Sean Sinclair and James Steele will combine their expertise in co-presenting an Estate Litigation teleseminar. Registration is...

read more

Can I quit my job to avoid paying my ex child support?

The answer is no, probably not. If a payor is seeking to quit their job simply to avoid paying child support, this is likely a non-starter.

However, if a payor’s reduction in income falls within one of the reasonable exceptions, and evidence supporting this is provided, a payor may avoid having income imputed to them for the purposes of support.

However, if a child support payor’s choice to quit their job thereby reducing their income, does not fit within an exception, the payor risks the Court imputing income to them for the purposes of support if they are found to be intentionally underemployed or unemployed.

The Federal Child Support Guidelines prescribes at section 19 that the Court has discretion to impute income where a parent is intentionally under-employed or unemployed.

The Algner v Algner, 2008 SKQB 132 decision of Madam Justice Ryan-Froslie (as she was then) remains the leading decision on this issue and has clearly set out the guiding principles respecting the imputation of income.

That case notes that a parent has an obligation to seek employment commensurate with their ability to earn income, and as a general rule, a parent cannot avoid his or her child support obligations by a self-induced reduction of income. However, parents are entitled to make employment or career changes that may impact their ability to pay child support so long as the decision is reasonable in the circumstances.

The first stage of the analysis is determining whether the payor is intentionally under-employed, and then, to determine whether any of the exceptions as set out at section 19(1)(a) of the Guidelines are applicable, namely, whether the under-employment or unemployment is required by reason of:

(i) the needs of a child of the marriage;

(ii) the needs of any child under the age of majority;

(iii) the reasonable educational needs of the spouse; or

(iv) the reasonable health needs of a spouse.

If the Court determines that a parent is intentionally under-employed, the onus then shifts to the parent earning less than they are capable of to demonstrate that their choice was reasonable in the circumstances. The Court does not need to first find that the parent is intentionally avoiding their child support obligation, only that it was a voluntary choice to become under-employed or unemployed.

A number of scenarios could be considered to fall within the exceptions when parties voluntarily leave their employment.

Given the limited scope of this article, I will touch on the health and reasonable educational needs exceptions.

If a health reason, namely the reasonable health needs of a spouse is being relied upon to justify a reduction in income and lower support, the Court needs to be satisfied that a career change is reasonable and require cogent evidence from a medical specialist establishing that the payor cannot do the work they did prior to quitting their employment.

It is critical that a medical specialist provide this evidence, as the Court in Clement v Bridges, 2013 SKQB 356 gave little weight to a chiropractor’s opinion as to whether the payor could continue to work on oil rigs, indicating that chiropractors are not medical doctors, nor are they qualified medical specialists and income was imputed to the payor.

The Court considered the reasonable educational needs exception in the Hinz v Hinz, 2017 SKQB 248 and D.A. v S.A., 2017 SKQB 108 decisions. In these cases, the Court found that a parent who decided to further their education despite having secure, fulltime employment with respectable income, that the practical implication on employment choices and salary was remote and modest. Accordingly, in finding the educational pursuit was not necessary nor reasonable for a parent to reduce their income to pursue this opportunity when there were child support obligations, the Court imputed income to the payors.

Accordingly, there is a wide array of facts that may support a reduction in income, provided it is reasonable and evidence in support is furnished. If you are the recipient of support or the payor of support and seek to reduce your obligations, I recommend you seek legal advice with respect to your family law matter.

Contacting a Lawyer on this Subject

Siobhan Morgan’s primary focus rests on family law and wills and estates. For more information on this subject, contact Siobhan at 1 306 933 1308.

The above is for general information only. Parties should always seek legal advice prior to taking action in specific situations. 

Related News and Articles

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

Protecting Your Assets the Right Way

A creditor bearing down on you, or an impending bankruptcy, brings many concerns and unknowns. You may have a family farm, a collectible such as an antique car or other assets that you wish to protect from your creditors. In order to save those assets, you may think it is prudent to transfer those assets to a spouse, family member or close family friend. However, these types of approaches are not as straightforward as they sound and can come with pitfalls where the transfer is not properly completed.

Before attempting to protect your assets, a few helpful tips should be remembered.

Transfer The Asset for Fair Market Value

This is the most important rule to remember. If you have a quarter section of land or an antique car, you cannot simply gift it away to a family member before assigning into bankruptcy. All transfers when you are, or are about to be, insolvent will be subject to scrutiny. The Fraudulent Preferences Act requires that all transfers to a non-arm’s length party (think someone you know better than an acquaintance) require the transfer to be for fair market value.

In order to do so, it is generally advisable to obtain a valuation from an arm’s length third party, such as an auctioneer. Having these objective benchmarks will allow you to show to your creditors, and the Court if necessary, that the transfer was within reason.

However, just because you have transferred the asset for fair market value does not mean you are out of the woods. The cash you receive for those assets needs to be accounted for, as your creditors may be entitled to a share of those funds as well. If you are planning a transfer, you should consult with your legal advisors as to if those funds should be held in a segregated trust account, paid directly to creditors or otherwise.

Among other things, you will want to make sure you account for your secured creditors who may have a security interest in the asset you have sold.

The Asset May be Exempt

Just as important to consider is the fact that the transfer may be unnecessary. There are various pieces of legislation that provide bankrupt parties with exemptions, meaning certain assets cannot be seized. This is especially true for farmers, who, provided they have a plan to continue actively farming, may be able to retain many of their farming assets.

It may be that the transfer is unnecessary, and you are not only incurring extra work and expense, but you are also raising the suspicions of your creditors. A careful evaluation of whether or not the asset is even capable of seizure should be done before you begin to decide where and how to transfer it.

Conclusion

Of course, before any transfer of this nature is undertaken, you should consult with both your legal professional and/or your insolvency professional to ensure you are acting in accordance with the law. Transfers prior to an insolvency will raise red flags for any creditor, so you will make sure the reward outweighs the risks and difficulties you will face.

Should you have questions, please contact Robertson Stromberg today to begin the process.

Contact a Lawyer on this subject.

Travis K. Kusch

Direct: (306) 933-1373
Main: (306) 652-7575
Fax: (306) 652-2445
Email: [email protected]

RELATED NEWS AND ARTICLES

Tessa Wall joins Robertson Stromberg as Associate

Congratulations to Tessa Wall on her call to the Saskatchewan Bar and on joining the firm as an Associate.Tessa received her Juris Doctor degree from the University of Saskatchewan in 2022. She also holds a Bachelor of Arts Honours degree in Psychology from the...

read more

Funeral expenses: Why executors should pay them promptly

This article discusses the payment of funeral expenses out of an estate, and why executors should pay them promptly.

The first reason is practical. After death, the funeral home is often the first to provide a service to the estate. It disposes of the body in a safe and respectful manner. As such, the funeral home understandably expects to be paid. To pay this expense promptly will ensure the estate is not later sued for the invoice, and interest charges are not incurred. Moreover, it means there is one less expense for the executors to later deal with.

The second reason to pay promptly, is that the law prioritizes funeral expenses. Almost every will drawn by a lawyer, will include a clause directing the executor “to pay out of and charge to the capital of my general estate my just debts, and funeral and testamentary expenses.”

Thus, the will of a deceased usually expressly requires the estate to pay the funeral expenses. Thus, even in situations where is a dispute over which will is valid, it is very unlikely there will be a dispute over whether it was legitimate to pay funeral expenses. Again, it is simpler to pay those expenses, get them out of the way, and then move on to other issues (like which will is valid etc).

For an example of how the law prioritizes the payment of funeral expenses, we may look to the Alberta decision in Chernichan v. Chernichan Estate, 2001 CarswellAlta 1730, 2001 ABQB 913, [2001] A.J. No. 1429. There, the Court spoke of the “public interest in the prompt and dignified disposal of human remains”, and that the funeral costs should be paid promptly:

14      Where one party pays funeral expenses, he or she is generally able to recover them from any person who has a higher obligation to pay them, even if that person had no input into or even knowledge of the funeral: Schara Tzedeck v. Royal Trust Co. (1952), [1953] 1 S.C.R. 31 (S.C.C.) at p. 37. Funeral arrangements must usually be made in a very short period of time, sometimes before the personal representative is identified, and invariably before probate is issued. The family usually makes the arrangements without regard to who is in a technical sense legally responsible for either making the arrangements or paying the expenses. Because of the public interest in the prompt and dignified disposal of human remains, the law imposes a duty on those ultimately responsible to reimburse the person who actually incurs the obligation. The obligation to reimburse arises in restitution, not in contract, and is founded on considerations of necessity, unjust enrichment and public health: Goff and Jones, The Law of Restitution, (5th ed., 1998), pp. 480-81. Thus the son in Routtu could recover from his father. See also Tkachuk v. Uhryn (1952), 6 W.W.R. (N.S.) 515 (Sask. Dist. Ct.) (daughter entitled to costs of funeral from estate); and Sargent & Son Ltd. v. Buday, [2000] O.J. No. 5476 (Ont. S.C.J.) (estate must reimburse son). The Applicant is therefore prima facie entitled to reimbursement for the reasonable expenses he incurred.

[emphasis added]

Even where an estate is insolvent, funeral expenses have a priority among the debts. Indeed, we find this enshrined in s. 46.2 of the Administration of Estates Act, SS 1998, c A-4.1 which says that reasonable funeral expenses are to be paid in priority to virtually all other debts. The provision reads below:

Ranking of debts

46.2 (1) When the assets of an estate are not sufficient to pay all the debts of an estate, the following debts shall be paid proportionately and without any preference or priority of debts of one rank or nature over those of another:

  1. debts due to the Crown in right of Saskatchewan and to the executor or administrator of the deceased person; and
  2. unsecured debts.

(2) Reasonable funeral, testamentary and administration expenses are to be paid in priority to the claims mentioned in subsection (1).

(3) Nothing in this section prejudices any lien or charge existing during the lifetime of the deceased on any of the deceased’s property

[emphasis added]

We even find that the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act makes clear that funeral expenses have a priority, where an estate has assigned into bankruptcy:

Priority of claims

136. (1) Subject to the rights of secured creditors, the proceeds realized from the property of a bankrupt shall be applied in priority of payment as follows:

(a) in the case of a deceased bankrupt, the reasonable funeral and testamentary expenses incurred by the legal representative or, in the Province of Quebec, the successors or heirs of the deceased bankrupt;

(b) the costs of administration, in the following order,

  1. the expenses and fees of any person acting under a direction made under paragraph 4.03(1)(a),
  2. the expenses and fees of the trustee, and
  3. legal costs;

[emphasis added]

Thus, there is a super-priority for funeral expenses. In the Chernichan decision referenced above, the Court even held that funeral expenses have a priority even over unpaid taxes owing by the estate. Because the executor, in that case, should have paid the funeral expenses before the taxes (and she did not), she was personally liable to pay any unpaid reasonable funeral expenses.

What if the funeral expenses are unreasonable?

Funeral expenses only have a priority to be paid, to the extent that they are reasonable. We see the qualifying word “reasonable” used in both the Administration of Estates Act, and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

What then is reasonable? There is some prior guidance from courts, suggesting that the cost of the funeral should be sensible, having regard to the deceased’s financial assets, and other circumstances. Thus, if a deceased died with very little in assets, it is reasonable that their funeral should contain only that is necessary. Indeed, the Chernichan decision held that ‘in insolvent estates only the simplest and most modest tombstones can be charged against the creditors.”

If the executor of a small estate insists on a magnificent and expensive service or headstone, the funeral home should obtain appropriate assurances from the executor (i.e. pre-payment, or a contract stating that the executor will be personally liable to pay the cost, if the estate cannot afford it).

What if the estate bank accounts are frozen?

Some delays in payment are frustrating but legitimate.

In many, even before probate is obtained, a bank will release monies from an account to pay the funeral costs. If an executor says that the bank will not release money to pay the funeral cost, the funeral home should ask the executor to find out why this is.

What about the case of a disputed will, where someone says Will A is valid, and someone argues Will B is valid? In such a case, the bank may be reluctant to deal with any executor until the one true will is determined in a court proceeding (and thus, once this is determined, it will also determine who is the true executor)

Should a will challenge be a good reason to hold up payment of funeral costs? From a common sense perspective, the two conflicting sides should ideally come to a negotiated agreement on the issue of funeral costs. That is, they may agree to immediately pay the funeral costs out of a bank account, on the basis that, regardless of which will is later found to govern, there is no reason the funeral expenses could not be paid in the interim. Of course, the above outcome requires the reasonableness of the two sides, which is never guaranteed in litigation.

What can funeral homes do to ensure they get paid?

If the circumstances of the deceased are complex (i.e. no local family to act as “decision maker” or pursue probate) the only way to guarantee payment is to ask for payment up front, before  providing services. One situation which occurs is there the funeral home does the work, but is left holding its unpaid invoice when no family member will take the effort to take steps to administer the estate etc. If the funeral home has evidence before the funeral that this may occur, the funeral home may wish to ask for money upfront.

Second, a funeral home should always make sure that it is obtaining instructions from the true representative of the estate. This is already required in the Funeral and Cremation Services Act, which requires a funeral home to obtain written authorization from the authorized decision-maker, before providing services (see s. 92). This due diligence should ensure that a funeral home does not do a lot of work at the request of person A, only to find out that person B was the true executor.

If a funeral home has tried all reasonable attempts to secure payment of an overdue invoice, they may need to simply sue the estate. If the bill is for less than $30,000, which most will be, you can sue in Small Claims court. However, note that in Small Claims court you cannot recover any legal fees, if you use a lawyer. Also note that, due to limitation periods, you must sue within 2 years of the non-payment. Indeed, when suing estates, the sooner you sue the better, to ensure that estate assets are not distributed out of your reach.

Sometimes the question arises – can a funeral home sue the executor personally, as well as the estate, for unpaid expenses? The executor’s personal money, is separate from the estate’s money. The most reliable way to ensure you can sue an executor personally, is to ensure the executor signs a contract in advance, stating that they are personally liable (in addition to the estate) to pay the funeral home. Not all executors may be willing to sign such a clause however, so you should clarify this before the funeral.   

That said, if an estate legitimately incurs a debt to a funeral home, and then later the executor distributes all the assets of the estate before paying the funeral home, that executor may become personally liable. Each situation is unique, and it is recommend to consult a lawyer for specific situations.

Contacting a Lawyer on this Subject

James Steele’s preferred practise area is estate litigation, including will challenges, executor disputes, power of attorney issues, etc. Contact James Steele at 1-306-933-1338 or [email protected]. The above is for general information only, and not legal advice. Parties should always seek legal advice prior to taking action in specific situations.

Read more on our blog.

The Saskatchewan Estate Law blog is dedicated to providing practical, real-world information on Estate Law issues that affect Saskatchewan residents. The blog is written by RS lawyer, James Steele, whose practice focuses on estate litigation.

New COVID Regulations

Effective October 1, 2021, the Government of Saskatchewan has introduced new regulations pursuant to The Saskatchewan Employment Act which provide private employers the option (but not the obligation) to require that their employees provide proof of vaccination or confirmation of a negative COVID-19 test result.

Under The Employers’ COVID-19 Emergency Regulations, an employer can choose to implement a policy which will require workers entering the workplace to either (1) show evidence of being fully vaccinated against COVID-19; or (2) show evidence of a negative COVID-19 test at least once every seven days. Employees who are not fully vaccinated will be responsible for any costs associated with the test, which must be taken during non-work hours 

Where an employer chooses to implement a policy under the Regulations, an employee who fails to comply with that policy may be prohibited from entering the workplace and may be subject to disciplinary consequences. It remains to be seen how courts will deal with circumstances where employees are disciplined or even terminated as a result of a failure to comply with a vaccination/testing policy. Lawyers will be closely monitoring developments in this area, and employers and employees who have concerns about these topics in the meantime should consult legal counsel.

Contact a Lawyer on this subject.

Candice D. Grant

Direct: (306) 933-1304
Main: (306) 652-7575
Fax: (306) 652-2445
Email: [email protected]

RELATED NEWS AND ARTICLES

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

Saskatchewan Estate Litigation Update: Fraser v Mountstephen, 2021 SKQB 192

The recent case of Fraser v Mountstephen offers reminder that not every irregularity with a Will can justify subjecting that Will to litigation.

Background

Blair Fraser died without children. He named a friend, Lori Ann Mountstephen, as Executrix. He left his entire estate to the children of Lori Ann. He left nothing to his siblings. Blair’s siblings suspected that Blair lacked testamentary capacity and/or was unduly influenced by the Executrix. A challenge was brought.

The background was this: after Blair’s father died in 2012, the respondent Executrix and her children spent more time at Blair’s farm assisting Blair in its operation. After Blair’s mother died in 2014 the frequency of that assistance increased. On March 10, 2018, Blair executed a Last Will and Testament before two witnesses: Garth Buitenhuis and Rodney Mountstephen. Rodney was the brother-in-law of the Executrix.

Blair’s will directed that his entire estate be distributed to the Executrix’s two children, Kaibry and Meranda.

Concerns raised in the challenge:

The challengers raised various concerns, including the below:

  1. Blair had had difficulties with school and failed to complete grade 11. Blair was also co-executor of his mother’s estate which took three years to administer. When asked about the delay Blair’s response was that it was “really hard”;
  2. Persons had commonly seen Blair to drink often, and often drinking heavily by 3 pm;
  3. The lawyer who did the will, Garth Buitenhuis, had not disclosed his will file notes.

Decision of the Court:

The Court summarized the factors to be considered when deciding whether suspicious circumstances are present (citing from Grosiak v Grosiak Estate2008 SKQB 232)

18  Therefore, when considering whether or not suspicious circumstances are present, the Court must look at the following factors:

(1) the extent of physical and mental impairment of the testator around the time the will was signed;

(2) whether the will in question constituted a significant change from the former will;

(3) whether the will in question generally seems to make testamentary sense;

(4) the factual circumstances surrounding the execution of the will;

(5) whether a beneficiary was instrumental in the preparation of the will.

The Court then went through each concern and found they failed to raise a genuine issue about capacity or undue influence. In particular:

  1. The evidence did not show that Blair in fact suffered cognitive difficulties, much less showed an inference that Blair’s cognitive difficulties impacted upon his testamentary capacity at the time he signed the will;
  2. At law, any established chronic and longstanding alcoholism of a testator was not sufficient to raise a genuine issue, unless there was medical evidence of alcoholism eroding capacity at the time the will was executed;
  3. The complaint about lack of disclosure of Garth Buitenhuis’s file was simply a fishing expedition, based more on what is unknown than known;
  4. The mere fact that a witness to the will (Mr. Mountstephen) was related to the executor, was not a suspicious circumstance and certainly was not probative evidence of undue influence. In any event, it is Mr. Buitenhuis’ uncontroverted evidence that Mr. Mountstephen witnessed the will at Blair’s specific request because Blair could not contact someone else to perform that role.

    The Court held that all the concerns were nothing more than “suggestions of irregularity”, which did not rise to the level of a genuine issue:

      [54]  In my respectful view, the circumstances raised by the applicants are nothing more than “suggestions of irregularity or evidence on peripheral points”. They do not, whether considered individually or cumulatively, constitute probative evidence on the issue of undue influence. Consequently, I find that the applicants have not convinced me there is a genuine issue to be tried on this issue.

      As such, the evidence offered did not raise a genuine question as to Blair’s testamentary capacity at the time he signed his will nor a genuine question as to whether he was unduly influenced to do so. 

      As such, the challenge was dismissed, and the executrix was given her tariff costs payable by the applicants.

      Lesson:

      Challengers must be careful to ensure they have direct evidence which strikes at the heart of whether a testator had capacity, or acted under coercion.

      The best evidence to challenge a will meets the following grounds;

      1. Stems from the precise time period in which the testator put his or her pen to the Will;
      2. Is not circumstantial, but rather is clear evidence showing that the testator may not have understood the Will, or wished to make it.

      Contacting a Lawyer on this Subject

      James Steele’s preferred practise area is estate litigation, including will challenges, executor disputes, power of attorney issues, etc. Contact James Steele at 1-306-933-1338 or [email protected]. The above is for general information only, and not legal advice. Parties should always seek legal advice prior to taking action in specific situations.

      Read more on our blog.

      The Saskatchewan Estate Law blog is dedicated to providing practical, real-world information on Estate Law issues that affect Saskatchewan residents. The blog is written by RS lawyer, James Steele, whose practice focuses on estate litigation.

      Articles & Research