Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Estate Planning Blogs -> Toronto Estate Law Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Estate Planning
: Toronto Estate Law BlogCHALLENGING A WILL: AN ILLUSTRATION Part II
By Hull & Hull LLP
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
Full post as published by Toronto Estate Law Blog on November 18, 2008 (boomark / email).
Apeks Scuba Diving Regulator
Recalled Due To Missing Part
Ellsworth School District
4.4% increase in salaries as part of contract settlement.
Tyson Foods
Donates Chickens as Part of Class Action Settlement
Asbestos Cleanup
Penn. Electric Co. pays part of $77,498 settlement in environmental lawsuit.
Energy Price Gouging
Inergy Propane announces refunds to customers as part of lawsuit settlement.
Rutland School District
Double pay offered as part of class action wage dispute settlement, pending court approval.

Medical Illustration & Animation
Dallas Cowboy Part of Suit Challenging Texas Caps
Alabama: supreme court dismisses suit challenging election of 4 Democratic senators
Christian Evangelist James Deferio Sues to Proclaim the Word of God in High Volume
New Paper on Writing and Teaching IP








