In Ontario a Will Challenge addresses a number of questions. Did the testamentary document comply with the formalities of execution? Did the testator have testamentary capacity? Was he subject to undue influence? Did the testator know and approve of the contents of the will? The answers to these questions will impact on the validity of a will.
The Court’s decision in Fichera v. McAllister acts as an important reminder of the importance of creating a contemporaneous evidentiary record of a parent’s intention when gifting property to their adult children.
As discussed in our blog, Gift or Loan? A case review of Greco v. Frano, one of the issues frequently raised in estate litigation is how to characterize funds that were advanced to/by a deceased. These types of cases often focus on whether the funds should be considered to be a gift or a loan. One of the reasons the courts are faced with these types of claims so frequently is that these are non-arm's length transactions and family members often do not feel the need to document their intentions as they would if they were dealing with arm's length parties.
There are certain situations in which one already knows that a Will is going to be challenged. It may be on the basis that there is some question about the testator’s capacity or his relationship with a new romantic partner who suddenly appeared or the bequests are unusual. Whatever the case might be, one might find yourself litigating in the face of a no-contest clause that appears within the Will that is having its validity challenged.
This blog will examine one of the most common mistakes made by people using DIY homemade wills - asking a beneficiary to witness the execution of the will.
Evaluating whether a limitation period may apply to prevent a party from pursuing their claim involves a two-stage analysis. First, the court must determine when a claim was “discovered”. Second the court will determine whether the applicant/plaintiff commenced a “proceeding” within the required time period.
Netflix’s recent hit docuseries, “Tiger King: Murder, Mayhem, and Madness”, chronicles the true story of the self-professed “Tiger King”, Joe Maldonado-Passage, also known as “Joe Exotic”. Joe was an eccentric private zookeeper, country music singer, and one-time candidate for Governor of Oklahoma who is currently serving a 22 year federal prison sentence for hiring a hitman to murder his rival, Carole Baskin, as well as other wildlife-related offences.Believe it or not, this bizarre story from the big-cat world raises legal issues pertaining to the law of estates.
An individual who seeks to have a will admitted to probate begins proceedings by applying for a certificate of appointment of estate trustee with a will. A person opposed to the will being admitted to probate need only file an objection (or a caveat as it is still called in some provinces).
A fundamental proposition of the common law with its own impressive Latin maxim (Nemo dat quod non habet) is that one cannot pass title to property one doesn’t own.
Rule 13.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Rules”) specifies where proceedings (which includes applications and actions) are to be commenced.
In Piekut, the court determined that a codicil to a will was valid notwithstanding that the application was commenced more than two years after the applicant discovered the codicil’s existence. Justice Dietrich made this determination despite case law that stands for the proposition that a party seeking to challenge a will must do so within two years from the date of the deceased's death, subject to the discoverability rules in the Limitations Act.