Toronto Estate Lawyer : Hull & Hull Law Firm : Trust Mediation and Succession Planning : Serving Ontario, Ottawa, Mississauga, Hamilton

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today is the final instalment of my discussion of Hix v. Ewachniuk Estate, 2008 CarswellBC 1300 (Hinkson J.).

After dismissing the will challenge on the basis of due execution, testamentary capacity and knowledge and approval, the court turned to the issue of undue influence. Despite the presence of suspicious circumstances, the court held that the challengers, not the propounder, had the burden of proving undue influence. However, while the son did not have the burden of disproving coercion, his evidence was to be tested against the preponderance of probabilities that rationally emerge out the all the evidence in the case.

The deceased was found to be vulnerable and dependant upon her son for all aspects of her existence. Conversely, the son was found to have an aggressive and domineering personality, both in general and with respect to his desire for absolute ownership of the family holding company.

The court found that the son was very caring of his mother. However, it did not accept his evidence on the issue of undue influence. The court asked a number of rhetorical questions as to why the mother would make the will that she did, despite the circumstances. The court concluded that that will was procured by the undue influence of the son.

The will was therefore found to be invalid.

Paul Trudelle

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday, I discussed Hix v. Ewachniuk Estate, 2008 CarswellBC 1300 (Hinkson J.), and the finding of the judge that suspicious circumstances existed, placing the onus back on the propounder to prove testamentary capacity and knowledge and approval.

As to testamentary capacity, the court referred to the oft – quoted decision of Banks v. Goodfellow, and the test for testamentary capacity.

It noted that the capacity required to direct the distribution of one’s estate by Will is “modest”. To be of a sound and disposing mind and memory, a testator must:

1.                  be aware that they are making a will that takes effect on their death;

2.                  understand the nature and extent of the estate to be disposed of by Will;

3.                  be aware of those having a claim to the estate;

4.                  have no disorder of the mind.

The court reviewed the evidence of the plaintiffs and the witnesses (other than the son) as to testamentary capacity. The court was satisfied that on the preponderance of the evidence, the testator had the necessary capacity to direct the disposition of her estate by will as of the date of the will.

As to knowledge and approval, the court noted that a suspicious circumstances raised in the case required that the son, as the propounder of the will, prove that the deceased knew of and approved of the contents of the will. The court did not accept the evidence of the son to the effect that the deceased had to carefully read her will and discuss it with him on numerous occasions. Despite this, the court concluded that the deceased knew of the provisions of the will that she signed.

To this point, the will survived most of the challenges to it. Will the will be accepted to probate? Can it withstand the final challenge: undue influence? Tune in tomorrow.

Paul Trudelle

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday, I introduced the will challenge decision of Hix v. Ewachniuk Estate, 2008 CarswellBC 1300 (Hinkson J.).

After disposing of the issue of due execution, the court turned to the doctrine of “suspicious circumstances”. The court referred to these Supreme Court of Canada decision of Vout v. Hay, where it was held that suspicious circumstances maybe raised by circumstances surrounding the preparation of the will, circumstances tending to call into question the capacity of the testator; or circumstances tending to show that the free will of the testator was overborne by acts of coercion or fraud.

Generally, the propounder of a will has the legal burden with respect to due execution, knowledge and approval, and testamentary capacity. However, upon proof that the will was duly executed, the propounder is aided by the rebuttable presumption that the testator knew and approved of the contents and had the necessary testamentary capacity.

The burden of establishing suspicious circumstances rests on those attacking the will. If evidence can be adduced which, if accepted, would tend to negative knowledge and approval or testamentary capacity, this burden is satisfied and the legal burden reverts to the propounder.

In Hix, it was the son who drafted the challenged will. The Court quoted from Vout v. Hay as follows:

“… if a party writes or prepares a Will, under which he takes a benefit, that is a circumstance that ought generally to excite suspicion of the Court, and calls upon it to be vigilant and jealous in examining the evidence in support of the instrument, in favour of which it ought not to pronounce unless the suspicion is removed, and it is judicially satisfied that the paper propounded does express the true Will of the deceased.”

The court concluded that the son should never have agreed to draw the will for the deceased. The fact that he did in the circumstances “does more than raise suspicion; it cries out for it.”

Tomorrow: testamentary capacity, and knowledge and approval

Paul Trudelle

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I recently attended a breakfast seminar hosted by Hull & Hull LLP, where I listened to my colleague, Natalia Angelini, speak about a testator's capacity to give instructions for the preparation of a Will.   
 
During Natalia's discussion, she spoke about the varying levels of capacity for different transactions.  Natalia also touched on the traditional grounds that a Will could be challenged.   I was particularly intrigued to learn that the circumstances surrounding the failure of a testator to make a will could be advanced as forming the basis for a will challenge.  

One of the traditional grounds for a will challenge is undue influence.  At its very basic form, undue influence occurs as a result of pressure brought to bear on the testator in giving instructions and executing the testamentary document.  The pressure brought on the testator, must be of such a degree that the testator has reached the point of thinking, "It is not my wish, but I must do it".

In contrast, "reverse" undue influence (as it has been called) occurs where a testator is being prevented from signing a Will.

As this interesting topic continues to evolve, I am confident that the estate & trust bar will be looking on with interest.

Rick Bickhram

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It has commonly been assumed that a will challenge cannot proceed prior to the death of the testator. The will speaks only upon the death of the testator, and a testator enjoys testamentary freedom to revise or otherwise revoke the will at any time prior to death, or to deal freely with his or her assets.

However, as reported in the New Jersey Law Blog, a recent California case has determined that when a conservator secures court approval of an estate plan while an individual is still alive, any challenge to the will must be made at that time, and not after the death of the individual.

In Murphy v. Murphy, the Court of Appeal for the State of California, First Appellate District, Docket No. A115177, the testator had suffered a stroke. A conservator was appointed for the testator, who sought court approval of the testator’s estate plan. A son, who was left out of the estate plan, was put on notice and did not challenge the estate plan.

After death, the son sought to challenge the estate plan. The Court of Appeal held that the son’s claim was barred on the basis of “collateral estoppel”. The son was not allowed to relitigate matters that were litigated in a prior proceeding.

The blog’s author observes that the decision “essentially bulletproofs the will of a person found incompetent and placed under the protection of a conservator, if the Court approves a revised estate plan with appropriate notice being given to all parties in interest who may have any basis to object.”

In Ontario, there is no similar procedure for approval of an estate plan. In fact, an attorney for property or guardian for property is expressly barred from making a will on behalf of the incapable person.  

However, at least two Ontario decisions (Stern v. Stern and Weinstein v. Weinstein (Litigation Guardian of) have commented to the effect that the court should not “close its eyes to the fact that litigation among expectant heirs is no longer deferred as a matter of course until the death of an incapable person”.

Paul Trudelle

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Or, listen to the audio version of Will Challenge Litigation - Part 5

This week on Hull on Estate and Succession Planning, Ian and Suzana continue their discussion on the Will Challenge Process, step by step.

They continue to discuss the process of will challenges in closer detail. What makes a good case? They talk about the five different grounds upon which a will can be challenged:

1. Lack of testamentary capacity
2. Existence of suspicious circumstances
3. Will not having been properly executed
4. Existence of undue influence
5. Possibility of fraud

If you have any comments, send us an email at hullandhull@gmail.com or call us on the comment line at 206-457-1985 or leave a comment on our blog.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As I am sipping on my coffee this morning, I am thinking to myself, who can commence a will challenge? 

A will challenge can be commenced pursuant to 75.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 75.06(1) is a procedural remedy that permits any person who appears to have a financial interest in an estate to apply for directions or move for directions in another proceeding.   This begs the question, who is considered to have a financial interest in an estate? This issue was addressed in the Ontario Superior Court (Divisional Court) decision of Smith v. Vance.

In Smith, the Deceased died on October 27, 1995, leaving a will dated January 5, 1994 which named the applicants as the estate trustees.   A notice of objection was filed by three individuals who were cousins of the deceased through marriage. The objection was subsequently struck by the Honourable Justice Perras during the motion for directions on the grounds that the objectors did not have a financial interest in the subject-Estate. In this hearing, the objectors appealed this decision.

The objectors asserted their financial interest in the Estate based on their close relationship with and their physical and financial assistance for the deceased. There was also an earlier destroyed will in which the objectors were named beneficiaries. Finally a letter was allegedly written by the deceased wherein she acknowledged that the objector will have an interest in her estate.

The court acknowledged that a financial interest is not defined in the Rules of Civil Procedure. In such cases, words should be taken by its natural meaning. Black's legal dictionary defines financial interest as an interest equated with money or its equivalent. The court held that claimants must do more than simply assert an interest. They must present sufficient evidence of a genuine interest and meet a threshold test to justify inclusion as a party. The interest need not be conclusive evidence at that stage but must be evidence capable of supporting an inference that the claim is one that should be heard. 

If the evidence offered by an objector is capable of supporting an inference that the claim raises a genuine issue, and thus is one that should be heard, the objector is entitled to standing and should be granted permission to be added as a party. The appeal was allowed and the order by the Honourable Justice Perras was set aside.

I hope you had fun reading today's blog. Until tomorrow,

Rick Bickhram