2,734
edits
(19 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
==== a) Generally ==== | ==== a) Generally ==== | ||
The will-maker must have the requisite testamentary capacity. No person of unsound mind, who lacks testamentary capacity, is capable of making a valid will. Testamentary capacity is defined through the common law, not statute. The basic test is found in ''Banks v Goodfellow'', (1870) LR 5 B 549 (QB) at para 569 [''Goodfellow'']; for a recent application of this test, see ''Nassim v | The will-maker must have the requisite testamentary capacity. No person of unsound mind, who lacks testamentary capacity, is capable of making a valid will. Testamentary capacity is defined through the common law, not statute. The basic test is found in ''Banks v Goodfellow'', (1870) LR 5 B 549 (QB) at para 569 [''Goodfellow'']; for a recent application of this test, see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc402/2022bcsc402.html Nassim v Healey]'', 2022 BCSC 402 at para 41 [''Nassim'']. | ||
According to the ''Goodfellow'' case and subsequent decisions, to have testamentary capacity a will-maker must: | According to the ''Goodfellow'' case and subsequent decisions, to have testamentary capacity a will-maker must: | ||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
* Form an orderly desire as to the disposition of the property. | * Form an orderly desire as to the disposition of the property. | ||
In ''Nassim'', the courts also outline a more “modern” form of the ''Goodfellow'' test that was quoted in ''Laszlo v Lawton'', 2013 BCSC 305 at para | In ''Nassim'', the courts also outline a more “modern” form of the ''Goodfellow'' test that was quoted in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2013/2013bcsc305/2013bcsc305.html Laszlo v Lawton]'', 2013 BCSC 305 at para 188 ''[Laszlo],'' "The testator must be sufficiently clear in his understandings and memory to know, on his own, and in a general way (1) the nature and extent of his property, (2) the persons who are the natural object of his bounty and (3) the testamentary provisions he is making; and he must moreover, be capable of (4) appreciating these factors in relation to each other, and (5) forming an orderly desire as to the disposition of his property…" | ||
''Laszlo'' at para 189 | ''Laszlo'' at para 189 sets out the relevant time for assessing capacity: when the will-maker gave instructions and when the will maker-executed the will. | ||
==== b) Presumption of Requisite Capacity ==== | ==== b) Presumption of Requisite Capacity ==== | ||
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
==== c) Presumption of Validity ==== | ==== c) Presumption of Validity ==== | ||
The rules regarding the burden of proof in relation to testamentary capacity were set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in ''Vout v Hay | The rules regarding the burden of proof in relation to testamentary capacity were set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1995/1995canlii105/1995canlii105.html Vout v Hay]'' [1995] 2 SCR. 876, 125 DLR (4th) 431 [''Vout'']. Essentially, if a will is duly executed in accordance with the formal statutory requirements after being read by a testator who appears to understand the will, it is presumed that the testator possessed the requisite capacity and knew and approved the contents of the will. This presumption may be rebutted where “suspicious circumstances” or undue influence exist (see below). | ||
==== d) Undue Influence ==== | ==== d) Undue Influence ==== | ||
Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
To challenge a will on the grounds of undue influence, the asserting party must show that the will does not represent the will-maker’s true intentions due to the coercion. If this can be shown, undue influence is presumed. The party that wishes to defend the will may rebut this presumption by showing that the will was a result of the testator’s own “full, free and informed thought”. See ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2010/2010bcsc64/2010bcsc64.html?autocompleteStr=Stewart%20v%20Mclean%2C%202010%20BCSC%2064&autocompletePos=1 Stewart v Mclean]'', 2010 BCSC 64 at para 96. Factors that can assist with rebutting the presumption includes proof that: | To challenge a will on the grounds of undue influence, the asserting party must show that the will does not represent the will-maker’s true intentions due to the coercion. If this can be shown, undue influence is presumed. The party that wishes to defend the will may rebut this presumption by showing that the will was a result of the testator’s own “full, free and informed thought”. See ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2010/2010bcsc64/2010bcsc64.html?autocompleteStr=Stewart%20v%20Mclean%2C%202010%20BCSC%2064&autocompletePos=1 Stewart v Mclean]'', 2010 BCSC 64 at para 96. Factors that can assist with rebutting the presumption includes proof that: | ||
:a) No actual influence was used or there was a lack of opportunity to influence; | |||
:b) The will-maker obtained independent legal advice or had the opportunity to do so; | |||
:c) The will-maker had the ability to resist the influence; or | |||
:d) The will-maker had knowledge and appreciation about what they were doing. | |||
Notwithstanding section 52 of ''WESA'', an individual challenging a will on the basis of undue influence should have sufficient evidence to establish actual undue influence – in challenging the validity of a will, it may be insufficient to simply point to a relationship where there was a potential for the testator’s domination or dependence, without more. An allegation of undue influence is a serious allegation which should not be made lightly. See ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2018/2018bcsc1032/2018bcsc1032.html?autocompleteStr=Ali%20v%20Walter%20Estate%2C%202018%20BCSC%201032&autocompletePos=1 Ali v Walter Estate]'', 2018 BCSC 1032; ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1991/1991canlii69/1991canlii69.html?autocompleteStr=Geffen%20v%20Goodman%20Estate%2C%20%5B1991%5D%202%20SCR%20353&autocompletePos=1 Geffen v Goodman Estate]'', [1991] 2 SCR 353, 81 DLR (4th) 211; ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2017/2017scc61/2017scc61.html Cowper-Smith v Morgan]'', 2017 SCC 61. | |||
Notwithstanding section 52 of ''WESA'', an individual challenging a will on the basis of undue influence should have sufficient evidence to establish actual undue influence – in challenging the validity of a will, it may be insufficient to simply point to a relationship where there was a potential for the testator’s domination or dependence, without more. An allegation of undue influence is a serious allegation which should not be made lightly. See ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2018/2018bcsc1032/2018bcsc1032.html?autocompleteStr=Ali%20v%20Walter%20Estate%2C%202018%20BCSC%201032&autocompletePos=1 Ali v Walter Estate]'', 2018 BCSC 1032 | |||
Allegations of undue influence should not be readily brought. A failed allegation of undue influence may attract severe monetary consequences against the accuser. When one alleges undue influence, they are accusing another of being a fraudster. A failed allegation of fraud more readily justifies an award of special costs against the accuser. Therefore, a party who fails to prove a case of undue influence runs the risk of having to pay the full legal costs of the defending party. As such, undue influence should be carefully considered and investigated before commencing a court action. See ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2011/2011bcsc923/2011bcsc923.html?autocompleteStr=Mawdsley%20v%20Meshen%2C%202011%20BCSC%20923&autocompletePos=1 Mawdsley v Meshen]'', 2011 BCSC 923. | Allegations of undue influence should not be readily brought. A failed allegation of undue influence may attract severe monetary consequences against the accuser. When one alleges undue influence, they are accusing another of being a fraudster. A failed allegation of fraud more readily justifies an award of special costs against the accuser. Therefore, a party who fails to prove a case of undue influence runs the risk of having to pay the full legal costs of the defending party. As such, undue influence should be carefully considered and investigated before commencing a court action. See ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2011/2011bcsc923/2011bcsc923.html?autocompleteStr=Mawdsley%20v%20Meshen%2C%202011%20BCSC%20923&autocompletePos=1 Mawdsley v Meshen]'', 2011 BCSC 923. | ||
Line 60: | Line 57: | ||
==== e) Suspicious Circumstances ==== | ==== e) Suspicious Circumstances ==== | ||
Suspicious circumstances may arise where a person who prepares a will also takes a benefit under it, though this is not exhaustive of all circumstances that raise a suspicion. The suspicion is that the will-maker did not know or approve of the contents of the will, and this suspicion must be removed before probate will be granted (see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1934/1934canlii13/1934canlii13.html?autocompleteStr=Riach%20v%20Ferris%2C%20%5B1934%5D%20SCR%20725&autocompletePos=1 Riach v Ferris]'', [1934] SCR 725; see also more recent applications in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/1989/1989canlii2923/1989canlii2923.html?autocompleteStr=Clark%20v%20Nash%2C%20(1989&autocompletePos=1 Clark v Nash]'', (1989) 61 DLR (4th) 409 (BCCA) and ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/1997/1997canlii2935/1997canlii2935.html?autocompleteStr=Johnson%20v%20Pelkey%2C%20(1997)%2036%20BCLR&autocompletePos=1 Johnson v Pelkey]'', (1997) 36 BCLR (3d) 40 (SC)). | Suspicious circumstances may arise where a person who prepares a will also takes a benefit under it, though this is not exhaustive of all circumstances that raise a suspicion. The suspicion is that the will-maker did not know or approve of the contents of the will, and this suspicion must be removed before probate will be granted (see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1934/1934canlii13/1934canlii13.html?autocompleteStr=Riach%20v%20Ferris%2C%20%5B1934%5D%20SCR%20725&autocompletePos=1 Riach v Ferris]'', [1934] SCR 725, [1935] 1 DLR 118; see also more recent applications in ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/1989/1989canlii2923/1989canlii2923.html?autocompleteStr=Clark%20v%20Nash%2C%20(1989&autocompletePos=1 Clark v Nash]'', (1989) 61 DLR (4th) 409 (BCCA), 34 ETR 174 and ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/1997/1997canlii2935/1997canlii2935.html?autocompleteStr=Johnson%20v%20Pelkey%2C%20(1997)%2036%20BCLR&autocompletePos=1 Johnson v Pelkey]'', (1997) 36 BCLR (3d) 40 (SC), 17 ETR (2d) 242. | ||
Suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of a will is not a stand-alone ground to challenge the validity of a will; however, if a challenger of a will can demonstrate that suspicious circumstances existed when the will was drafted, this may shift the burden to the propounders of the will to prove that the testator had knowledge and approved of the contents of the will when it was made. In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1995/1995canlii105/1995canlii105.html?autocompleteStr=Vout%20v%20Hay%2C%20%5B1995%5D%202%20SCR%20876&autocompletePos=1 Vout v Hay]'', [1995] 2 SCR 876 at para 25 [''Vout''], the Court held that suspicious circumstance may be raised by: | Suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of a will is not a stand-alone ground to challenge the validity of a will; however, if a challenger of a will can demonstrate that suspicious circumstances existed when the will was drafted, this may shift the burden to the propounders of the will to prove that the testator had knowledge and approved of the contents of the will when it was made. In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1995/1995canlii105/1995canlii105.html?autocompleteStr=Vout%20v%20Hay%2C%20%5B1995%5D%202%20SCR%20876&autocompletePos=1 Vout v Hay]'', [1995] 2 SCR 876 at para 25 [''Vout''], the Court held that suspicious circumstance may be raised by: | ||
:a) circumstances surrounding the preparation of the will, | |||
:b) circumstances tending to call into question the capacity of the testator, or | |||
:c) circumstances tending to show that the free will of the testator was overborn by acts of coercion or fraud. | |||
The Court in ''Vout'' held that where the party seeking to overturn the will can point to some evidence, that if believed would prove suspicious circumstances, the burden of proof shifts to the propounder of the will to prove on a balance of probabilities that the will-maker knew and approved of the will’s contents and had the necessary testamentary capacity. This problem is best avoided by ensuring the will is prepared by the will-maker or some independent party (e.g., a student or lawyer) and not by a beneficiary, or the spouse of a beneficiary, under the will. | The Court in ''Vout'' held that where the party seeking to overturn the will can point to some evidence, that if believed would prove suspicious circumstances, the burden of proof shifts to the propounder of the will to prove on a balance of probabilities that the will-maker knew and approved of the will’s contents and had the necessary testamentary capacity. This problem is best avoided by ensuring the will is prepared by the will-maker or some independent party (e.g., a student or lawyer) and not by a beneficiary, or the spouse of a beneficiary, under the will. | ||
Line 152: | Line 147: | ||
==== c) Appointing a Guardian ==== | ==== c) Appointing a Guardian ==== | ||
A will-maker may wish to appoint a guardian for their children during their age of minority (see ''Family Law Act'', SBC 2011, c 25 s 53 (1) (a)). Financial assistance should be provided to the guardian to cover the costs of raising the children. This arrangement is made with the Trustee. The guardian must be prepared to accept the position and should be consulted beforehand. | A will-maker may wish to appoint a guardian for their children during their age of minority (see ''Family Law Act'', SBC 2011, c 25 s 53(1)(a)). Financial assistance should be provided to the guardian to cover the costs of raising the children. This arrangement is made with the Trustee. The guardian must be prepared to accept the position and should be consulted beforehand. | ||
A will-maker cannot grant a greater level of guardianship than they possess. Also note that under section 176 of the ''Family Law Act'', a child’s guardian does not automatically become a trustee of the child’s property. If there is any uncertainty regarding what type of guardianship the client has, or whether the client even has guardianship, the client should be referred to a family law lawyer, as LSLAP cannot deal with questions of family law. | A will-maker cannot grant a greater level of guardianship than they possess. Also note that under section 176 of the ''Family Law Act'', a child’s guardian does not automatically become a trustee of the child’s property. If there is any uncertainty regarding what type of guardianship the client has, or whether the client even has guardianship, the client should be referred to a family law lawyer, as LSLAP cannot deal with questions of family law. | ||
Line 195: | Line 190: | ||
The will-maker may wish to make a specific bequest of a personal article. The appropriate item must be listed. | The will-maker may wish to make a specific bequest of a personal article. The appropriate item must be listed. | ||
:'''SAMPLE:''' “(a) to deliver my [article 1] to my [relationship] [article 1 recipient full name], if [they] are alive on the date that is 5 days after the date of my death, and if [they] are not alive on that date, add [article 1] to the residue of my estate. | :'''SAMPLE:''' | ||
:“(a) to deliver my [article 1] to my [relationship] [article 1 recipient full name], if [they] are alive on the date that is 5 days after the date of my death, and if [they] are not alive on that date, add [article 1] to the residue of my estate. | |||
:“(b) [to pay [all/a specified portion] of the packing, freight, and insurance costs my Trustee decides [are/is] appropriate for delivering any items of the Articles as required by this will].” (2020 CLEBC ''Wills and Personal Planning Precedents'', 11.8) | :“(b) [to pay [all/a specified portion] of the packing, freight, and insurance costs my Trustee decides [are/is] appropriate for delivering any items of the Articles as required by this will].” (2020 CLEBC ''Wills and Personal Planning Precedents'', 11.8) | ||
Line 215: | Line 211: | ||
To ensure that property passes according to the will-maker’s intention, a 30-day survivorship clause should be added, which requires the surviving spouse to survive the will-maker by 30 days (or such period as the will-maker wishes). A sample clause when the deceased spouse leaves the residue to the surviving spouse is: | To ensure that property passes according to the will-maker’s intention, a 30-day survivorship clause should be added, which requires the surviving spouse to survive the will-maker by 30 days (or such period as the will-maker wishes). A sample clause when the deceased spouse leaves the residue to the surviving spouse is: | ||
:'''SAMPLE:''' “(a) to give the residue of my estate to [residue name], if [they] are alive on the date that is 30 days after the date of my death; | :'''SAMPLE:''' | ||
::“(a) to give the residue of my estate to [residue name], if [they] are alive on the date that is 30 days after the date of my death; | |||
::(b) if [residue name] is not alive on the date that is 30 days after the date of my death, [specify what to do with residue].” (2020 CLEBC ''Wills and Personal Planning Precedents'', 15.4) | ::(b) if [residue name] is not alive on the date that is 30 days after the date of my death, [specify what to do with residue].” (2020 CLEBC ''Wills and Personal Planning Precedents'', 15.4) | ||
Line 283: | Line 280: | ||
==== a) Eliminating Potential Beneficiaries ==== | ==== a) Eliminating Potential Beneficiaries ==== | ||
See Section | See Section [[Wills_Variation_Claims_(16:VI)|VI: Wills Variation Claims]] for more information regarding why eliminating potential beneficiaries can be problematic. | ||
==== b) Funeral Directions ==== | ==== b) Funeral Directions ==== | ||
Line 293: | Line 290: | ||
==== c) Execution and Attestation Clause ==== | ==== c) Execution and Attestation Clause ==== | ||
'''The execution and attestation clause should not be on a page of its own. It must follow the final clause of the will on the same page'''. This is required to prevent the insertion of additional clauses after the will is signed. Always have the will-maker sign it at the end of the will in the presence of two witnesses who do not have an interest in the estate (i.e. is not a beneficiary or executor) and are not the spouses of any individual who has an interest in the estate; there must be room for the two witnesses’ signatures (see ''' | '''The execution and attestation clause should not be on a page of its own. It must follow the final clause of the will on the same page'''. This is required to prevent the insertion of additional clauses after the will is signed. Always have the will-maker sign it at the end of the will in the presence of two witnesses who do not have an interest in the estate (i.e. is not a beneficiary or executor) and are not the spouses of any individual who has an interest in the estate; there must be room for the two witnesses’ signatures (see Section '''III.D: Executing the Will''' and Section '''III.E: Attesting the Will'''). | ||
:'''SAMPLE:''' | :'''SAMPLE:''' | ||
Line 347: | Line 344: | ||
:(2020 CLEBC ''Wills and Personal Planning Precedents'', 22.35) | :(2020 CLEBC ''Wills and Personal Planning Precedents'', 22.35) | ||
:'''NOTE: Execute only the original will'''. Copies should not be signed by the will-maker and witnesses but can be photocopied or have facsimile signatures and dates inserted. Students should write or stamp the word “copy” on all photocopies. | :'''NOTE: Execute only the original will'''. Copies should not be signed by the will-maker and witnesses but can be photocopied or have facsimile signatures and dates inserted. Students should write or stamp the word “copy” on all photocopies. | ||
:'''NOTE: Ability to electronically witness a will.''' Ministerial Order No. M161 was issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the order allows for temporary electronic witnessing of wills starting on March 18, 2020. Since then, ''Bill 21'' has been tabled, which will give full validity to electronically witnessed wills going forward. ''Bill 21'' is not yet fully in effect, so readers are advised to seek out the most recent updates. See Section III.E.2: Signatures of Witnesses for more information. | :'''NOTE: Ability to electronically witness a will.''' Ministerial Order No. M161 was issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the order allows for temporary electronic witnessing of wills starting on March 18, 2020. Since then, ''Bill 21'' has been tabled, which will give full validity to electronically witnessed wills going forward. ''Bill 21'' is not yet fully in effect, so readers are advised to seek out the most recent updates. See Section '''III.E.2: Signatures of Witnesses''' for more information. | ||
== D. Executing the Will == | == D. Executing the Will == | ||
Line 374: | Line 372: | ||
=== 3. Beneficiary's Debt to Estate === | === 3. Beneficiary's Debt to Estate === | ||
According to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2017/2017bcsc272/2017bcsc272.html?autocompleteStr=Re%20Johnston%20Estate%2C%202017%20BCSC%20272&autocompletePos=1 | According to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2017/2017bcsc272/2017bcsc272.html?autocompleteStr=Re%20Johnston%20Estate%2C%202017%20BCSC%20272&autocompletePos=1 Johnston Estate (Re)]'', 2017 BCSC 272, the rule in ''Cherry v Boultbee'', 41 ER 171 applies in Canada. This means that the beneficiary is required to bring their debts towards the estate into account, even if the debt claim would otherwise be statute-barred by the ''Limitations Act''. ''Johnston Estate (Re)'' states that “the purpose of the rule was to prevent a beneficiary who owed money to an estate from receiving more than their fair share of the estate.” | ||
== E. Attesting the Will == | == E. Attesting the Will == | ||
Line 382: | Line 380: | ||
==== a) Meaning of Signature ==== | ==== a) Meaning of Signature ==== | ||
'''There must be a signature or a mark on the will intended to be a signature'''. Thus, something less than a signature, e.g. initials, will be sufficient where it is intended to represent the name and to be a signature (''In the Goods of Chalcraft'', [1948] 1 All ER 700; ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/nb/nbqb/doc/1988/1988canlii7832/1988canlii7832.html?resultIndex=2 Bradshaw Estate, Re]'', [1988] NBJ No 709). Where necessary, the will-maker’s hand may be guided by another person; however, this requires the will-maker’s clear direction or consent (''Re: White'', (1948) 1 DLR 572 (NS App Div)). | '''There must be a signature or a mark on the will intended to be a signature'''. Thus, something less than a signature, e.g. initials, will be sufficient where it is intended to represent the name and to be a signature (''In the Goods of Chalcraft'', [1948] 1 All ER 700; ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/nb/nbqb/doc/1988/1988canlii7832/1988canlii7832.html?resultIndex=2 Bradshaw Estate, Re]'', [1988] NBJ No 709, 90 NBR (2d) 194). Where necessary, the will-maker’s hand may be guided by another person; however, this requires the will-maker’s clear direction or consent (''Re: White'', (1948) 1 DLR 572 (NS App Div)). | ||
The will-maker need not sign the will themselves. Sections 1(1) and (2) of ''WESA'' provides that the “will-maker’s signature” includes “a signature made by another person in the will-maker's presence and by the will-maker's direction.” Where someone else signs on behalf of the will-maker, there must be some act or word by the will-maker constituting a direction or request. When someone else signs, that person may sign in either the will-maker’s name or their own name, but this circumstance should be noted in the attestation clause (''Re Fiszhaut Estate'', (1966) 55 WWR 303 (BCSC)). If this issue should arise, there must be further review to ensure the signature’s legal validity. | The will-maker need not sign the will themselves. Sections 1(1) and (2) of ''WESA'' provides that the “will-maker’s signature” includes “a signature made by another person in the will-maker's presence and by the will-maker's direction.” Where someone else signs on behalf of the will-maker, there must be some act or word by the will-maker constituting a direction or request. When someone else signs, that person may sign in either the will-maker’s name or their own name, but this circumstance should be noted in the attestation clause (''Re Fiszhaut Estate'', (1966) 55 WWR 303 (BCSC)). If this issue should arise, there must be further review to ensure the signature’s legal validity. | ||
Line 388: | Line 386: | ||
==== b) Position of Signature ==== | ==== b) Position of Signature ==== | ||
'''Section 37(1)(b) of ''WESA'' requires the signature be at the end of the will'''. Section 39(2) defines when a will is deemed to be signed at the end and provides that a disposition made below or after the signature is of no effect. Case law has taken a liberal view of these requirements, finding a signature not at the end to have been intended to be at the end (''In the Goods of Henry Hornby'', [1946] All ER 150 and ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/mb/mbqb/doc/1981/1981canlii3424/1981canlii3424.html?autocompleteStr=Currie%20v%20Potter%20%5B1981%5D%206%20WWR%20377%20(Man%20QB)&autocompletePos=1 Currie v Potter]'' [1981] 6 WWR 377 (Man QB)) and finding a disposition after the signature to have been intended to precede the signature (''Palin v Ponting'', [1930] para 185, considered in ''Beniston Estate v Shepherd'', (1996) 16 ETR (2d) 71 (BCSC)). However, to ensure the validity of the will and all dispositions, the will should be signed at its end, after all dispositions. When a will is more than one page, it should be signed at the end of the last page and there should be a portion of the will on the last page. The last page of the will should indicate the will-maker is signing this page as the last of all the pages constituting the will. Although not required, the will-maker and witnesses should initial the other pages of the will. | '''Section 37(1)(b) of ''WESA'' requires the signature be at the end of the will'''. Section 39(2) defines when a will is deemed to be signed at the end and provides that a disposition made below or after the signature is of no effect. Case law has taken a liberal view of these requirements, finding a signature not at the end to have been intended to be at the end (''In the Goods of Henry Hornby'', [1946] 2 All ER 150 and ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/mb/mbqb/doc/1981/1981canlii3424/1981canlii3424.html?autocompleteStr=Currie%20v%20Potter%20%5B1981%5D%206%20WWR%20377%20(Man%20QB)&autocompletePos=1 Currie v Potter]'' [1981] 6 WWR 377, 12 Man R (2d) 396 (Man QB)) and finding a disposition after the signature to have been intended to precede the signature (''Palin v Ponting'', [1930] para 185, considered in ''Beniston Estate v Shepherd'', (1996) 16 ETR (2d) 71 (BCSC)). However, to ensure the validity of the will and all dispositions, the will should be signed at its end, after all dispositions. When a will is more than one page, it should be signed at the end of the last page and there should be a portion of the will on the last page. The last page of the will should indicate the will-maker is signing this page as the last of all the pages constituting the will. Although not required, the will-maker and witnesses should initial the other pages of the will. | ||
==== c) Electronic Signatures ==== | ==== c) Electronic Signatures ==== | ||
Line 398: | Line 396: | ||
==== a) Generally ==== | ==== a) Generally ==== | ||
The will-maker must make or acknowledge the signature in the joint presence of two attesting witnesses present when the will is signed (''WESA'', s 37) A beneficiary of the will or the will-maker’s spouse should never witness the will, as it may void the gift they receive through the will (''WESA'', ss 40, 43). It will be sufficient if the will-maker has made their signature in the joint presence of the witnesses. If they have not, the will-maker must acknowledge the signature in the witnesses’ presence, as it becomes a question of fact that witnesses must have actually seen or been able to see the signature when the will-maker acknowledged it (see ''Re | The will-maker must make or acknowledge the signature in the joint presence of two attesting witnesses present when the will is signed (''WESA'', s 37) A beneficiary of the will or the will-maker’s spouse should never witness the will, as it may void the gift they receive through the will (''WESA'', ss 40, 43). It will be sufficient if the will-maker has made their signature in the joint presence of the witnesses. If they have not, the will-maker must acknowledge the signature in the witnesses’ presence, as it becomes a question of fact that witnesses must have actually seen or been able to see the signature when the will-maker acknowledged it (see ''Re Shafner'', (1956) 2 DLR (2d) 593, 38 MPR 217 (NSSC)). | ||
Both witnesses must also attest after the will-maker makes or acknowledges their signature in their joint presence. Though they need not sign in each other’s presence, they must each sign in the presence of the will-maker who must actually see or be able to see the witnesses sign (''WESA'', s 37(1)(c)). '''Attesting witnesses must be able to confirm the will-maker’s execution of the will; they do not need to be aware of the contents of the will'''. | Both witnesses must also attest after the will-maker makes or acknowledges their signature in their joint presence. Though they need not sign in each other’s presence, they must each sign in the presence of the will-maker who must actually see or be able to see the witnesses sign (''WESA'', s 37(1)(c)). '''Attesting witnesses must be able to confirm the will-maker’s execution of the will; they do not need to be aware of the contents of the will'''. | ||
Line 420: | Line 418: | ||
There is one exception to this rule. Section 43(4) of ''WESA'' provides that, if the court is satisfied that the will-maker intended to make the gift to the person, the gift to the witness will not be void. In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2017/2017bcsc548/2017bcsc548.html?autocompleteStr=Bach%20Estate%2C%20Re%2C%202017%20BCSC%20548%20&autocompletePos=1 Bach Estate, Re]'', 2017 BCSC 548 at para 54, the Court held that section 43(4) of ''WESA'' empowers the court to declare a presumptively void gift valid if it “is satisfied that the document represents the testamentary intentions of that deceased person”. The court also held that “extrinsic evidence is admissible on the question of testamentary intent, and the Court is not limited to the evidence that an inspection of the document provides.” See also ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2017/2017bcsc1699/2017bcsc1699.html?autocompleteStr=Re%20Estate%20of%20Le%20Gallais%2C%202017%20BCSC%20&autocompletePos=1 Re Estate of Le Gallais]'', 2017 BCSC 1699. | There is one exception to this rule. Section 43(4) of ''WESA'' provides that, if the court is satisfied that the will-maker intended to make the gift to the person, the gift to the witness will not be void. In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2017/2017bcsc548/2017bcsc548.html?autocompleteStr=Bach%20Estate%2C%20Re%2C%202017%20BCSC%20548%20&autocompletePos=1 Bach Estate, Re]'', 2017 BCSC 548 at para 54, the Court held that section 43(4) of ''WESA'' empowers the court to declare a presumptively void gift valid if it “is satisfied that the document represents the testamentary intentions of that deceased person”. The court also held that “extrinsic evidence is admissible on the question of testamentary intent, and the Court is not limited to the evidence that an inspection of the document provides.” See also ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2017/2017bcsc1699/2017bcsc1699.html?autocompleteStr=Re%20Estate%20of%20Le%20Gallais%2C%202017%20BCSC%20&autocompletePos=1 Re Estate of Le Gallais]'', 2017 BCSC 1699. | ||
== F | == F. Filing a Wills Notice == | ||
'''After the will is complete, a Wills Notice should be filed with the Department of Vital Statistics in Victoria''' (''WESA'', at s 73). The purpose of the notice is to record the existence and location of the will and make it easier to find the will after the will-maker’s death. A will-maker is not required by law to file a Wills Notice. However, it is recommended as a wills search must be undertaken by the Executor or Administrator before the Grant of Probate or Grant of Administration are issued. | '''After the will is complete, a Wills Notice should be filed with the Department of Vital Statistics in Victoria''' (''WESA'', at s 73). The purpose of the notice is to record the existence and location of the will and make it easier to find the will after the will-maker’s death. A will-maker is not required by law to file a Wills Notice. However, it is recommended as a wills search must be undertaken by the Executor or Administrator before the Grant of Probate or Grant of Administration are issued. | ||
Line 461: | Line 430: | ||
* The date the note was filed with the Vital Statistics Agency. | * The date the note was filed with the Vital Statistics Agency. | ||
There are three ways of filing a Wills Notice: either online, by mail, or in person. All three methods require a $17.00 charge for filing, payable to the Minister of Finance. Forms are available | There are three ways of filing a Wills Notice: either online, by mail, or in person. All three methods require a $17.00 charge for filing, payable to the Minister of Finance. Forms are available at https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/health/forms/vital-statistics/vsa531_fill.pdf. If filing by mail is preferred, then the VSA 531 form must be completed and mailed to '''Vital Statistics Agency''', PO Box 9657 Stn Prov Govt, Victoria, BC V8W 9P3. | ||
Finally, the VSA 531 form can be submitted in person to any Service BC Counter. Locations can be found at: www.servicebc.gov.bc.ca. | Finally, the VSA 531 form can be submitted in person to any Service BC Counter. Locations can be found at: http://www.servicebc.gov.bc.ca. | ||
If a will is made with LSLAP, the forms are also on file in the LSLAP office. '''A copy of the notice should be made and the original notice should be sent to the Vital Statistics Agency'''. The copy should be either kept with the will or with the personal representative. Do not send a copy of the will. Students may not sign the notice as the client’s solicitor. The client must sign the form. | If a will is made with LSLAP, the forms are also on file in the LSLAP office. '''A copy of the notice should be made and the original notice should be sent to the Vital Statistics Agency'''. The copy should be either kept with the will or with the personal representative. Do not send a copy of the will. Students may not sign the notice as the client’s solicitor. The client must sign the form. | ||
:'''NOTE ON ELECTRONIC WILLS:''' The Wills Notice Form does not provide dedicated space to indicate the electronic location of a will. If they chose to register an electronic will, a client should use the address space on the form to indicate the digital location of the will. This might be in the form of a link to a cloud storage space, the file path to a document stored on a hard drive, or something else entirely. Clients should consider potential barriers to accessing an electronic will. If it proves impossible to locate or access an electronic will after the will maker is deceased, their estate will be distributed as if the electronic will did not exist. Electronic wills are very new in BC, and there is little jurisprudence surrounding their use. | |||
{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters15- | {{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters15-23}} |
edits