Revocation of a Will (16:VI) - Revision history

LSLAP at 19:31, 13 October 2025

2025-10-13T19:31:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:31, 13 October 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= ~~August 22, 2024~~}}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= 16 July 2025}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = wills}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = wills}}

LSLAP at 17:15, 22 August 2024

2024-08-22T17:15:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:15, 22 August 2024
Line 42:		Line 42:
	== C. By Subsequent Will ==		== C. By Subsequent Will ==

	A will may be revoked by another will made in accordance with section 55(1)(a) of ''WESA''. Nevertheless, it is common practice to clearly provide for such by the inclusion of a revocation clause at the beginning of a will. '''Notwithstanding an express revocation clause, a second will does not necessarily absolutely revoke a former will'''. There may be partial revocation only; where the second will does not completely dispose of the estate, both documents may be admitted to probate. The will-maker should, therefore, ensure that the second will disposes of the entire estate, which may be accomplished through the use of an effective residuary clause.		A will may be revoked by another will made in accordance with section 55(1)(a) of ''WESA''. Nevertheless, it is common practice to clearly provide for such by the inclusion of a revocation clause at the beginning of a will.

			'''Notwithstanding an express revocation clause, a second will does not necessarily absolutely revoke a former will.''' There may be partial revocation only; where the second will does not completely dispose of the estate, both documents may be admitted to probate. The will-maker should, therefore, ensure that the second will disposes of the entire estate, which may be accomplished through the use of an effective residuary clause.


	== D. Effect of Marriage on Will Revocation ==		== D. Effect of Marriage on Will Revocation ==

	Under ''WESA'', a subsequent marriage will no longer revoke a prior will.		Under ''WESA'', a subsequent marriage will no longer revoke a prior will.


	== E. Effect of Divorce, Separation, and Change in Circumstances on Will Revocation ==		== E. Effect of Divorce, Separation, and Change in Circumstances on Will Revocation ==
Line 52:		Line 56:
	Neither marriage nor divorce of the will-maker will revoke a will. However, a change in circumstances may lead to an individual no longer being considered a spouse. This will bar the former spouse from a claim to vary a will.		Neither marriage nor divorce of the will-maker will revoke a will. However, a change in circumstances may lead to an individual no longer being considered a spouse. This will bar the former spouse from a claim to vary a will.

	Additionally, if a will-maker wishes to leave anything in a will to a former spouse, ~~wishes to~~ appoint a former spouse as executor, or ~~wishes to~~ confer any powers of appointment on a former spouse, the will-maker should explicitly state that this is being done contrary to section 56(2) of ''WESA''.		Additionally, if a will-maker wishes to

			* leave anything in a will to a former spouse,
			* appoint a former spouse as executor, or
			* confer any powers of appointment on a former spouse,

			the will-maker should explicitly state that this is being done contrary to section 56(2) of ''WESA''.


	== F. Effect of Family Law Act ==		== F. Effect of Family Law Act ==

	According to ''[https://~~www.~~canlii.~~org~~/en/~~bc/bcsc/doc/2015/2015bcsc2248/2015bcsc2248.html?autocompleteStr=Howland%20Estate%20v.%20Sikora%2C%202015%20BCSC%20&autocompletePos=1~~ Howland Estate v. Sikora]'', 2015 BCSC 2248: “The death of the claimant, prior to the coming into force of the [''Family Law Act''], does not override the respondent's right to commence an action against the claimant's estate so long as it occurs within the two year period contemplated in s. 198 [of the ''Family Law Act''], as happened here.” In summary, this means that the ''Family Law Act'' claims can continue even past death as long as the claimant brings a suit within two years.		According to [https://canlii.ca/t/gmc73 ''Howland Estate v. Sikora''], 2015 BCSC 2248: “The death of the claimant, prior to the coming into force of the [''Family Law Act''], does not override the respondent's right to commence an action against the claimant's estate so long as it occurs within the two year period contemplated in s. 198 [of the ''Family Law Act''], as happened here.” In summary, this means that the ''Family Law Act'' claims can continue even past death as long as the claimant brings a suit within two years.


	{{LSLAP Manual Navbox\|type=chapters15-23}}		{{LSLAP Manual Navbox\|type=chapters15-23}}

LSLAP at 17:12, 22 August 2024

2024-08-22T17:12:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:12, 22 August 2024
Line 37:		Line 37:
	* may burn, tear or destroy all or part of a paper copy of the will in some manner, in the presence of a witness, with the intention of revoking all or part of the will.		* may burn, tear or destroy all or part of a paper copy of the will in some manner, in the presence of a witness, with the intention of revoking all or part of the will.

	An inadvertent deletion of one or more electronic versions of a will is not evidence of an intention to revoke the will, so what is important is the intention of the will-maker; see Section III.D.2: Electronic Wills, for more information.		An inadvertent deletion of one or more electronic versions of a will is not evidence of an intention to revoke the will, so what is important is the intention of the will-maker; see [[Making_and_Executing_a_Will_(16:III)\|Section III.D.2: Electronic Wills]], for more information.

LSLAP at 17:10, 22 August 2024

2024-08-22T17:10:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:10, 22 August 2024
Line 15:		Line 15:
	A subsequent instrument in writing that		A subsequent instrument in writing that

	● is '''not''' a subsequent will but		* is '''not''' a subsequent will but
	● is in compliance with the provisions of ''WESA'' (e.g., signed by two witnesses, etc.)		* is in compliance with the provisions of ''WESA'' (e.g., signed by two witnesses, etc.)

	may have the effect of revoking the will (''WESA'', s 55(1)(b)).		may have the effect of revoking the will (''WESA'', s 55(1)(b)).

LSLAP at 17:10, 22 August 2024

2024-08-22T17:10:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:10, 22 August 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= ~~June 30~~, ~~2023~~}}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= August 22, 2024}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = wills}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = wills}}

	Revocation of wills is governed by sections 55 and 55.1 of ''WESA''. These sections outline the only ways in which a will may be revoked. Section 56 of ''WESA'' ~~provides~~ that if a will-maker gifts, appoints as an executor, or confers power to ~~a person~~ who ~~subsequently~~ ceases to be ~~the~~ spouse ~~of the will-maker~~ under section 2(2) before the will-maker’s death, only that gift, appointment, ~~and/~~or conferment is revoked, not the entire will. The gift to the ex-spouse must be distributed as if they died before the will-maker. The application of section 56 of ''WESA'' is subject to any contrary intention in the will.		Revocation of wills is governed by sections 55 and 55.1 of ''WESA''. These sections outline the only ways in which a will may be revoked. Section 56(2) of ''WESA'' states that if a will-maker

			* gifts,
			* appoints as an executor, or
			* confers power to someone who ceases to be their spouse under section 2(2) before the will-maker’s death,

			only that specific gift, appointment, or conferment is revoked, not the entire will. The gift to the ex-spouse must be distributed as if they died before the will-maker. The application of section 56 of ''WESA'' is subject to any contrary intention in the will. Please note that the operation of section 56(2) is not affected by a subsequent reconciliation of the will-maker and the spouse.


	== A. By Subsequent Writing ==		== A. By Subsequent Writing ==

	A subsequent instrument in writing that is '''not''' a subsequent will but is in compliance with the provisions of ''WESA'' (e.g. signed by two witnesses, etc.) may have the effect of revoking the will (''WESA'', s 55(1)(b)).		A subsequent instrument in writing that

			● is '''not''' a subsequent will but
			● is in compliance with the provisions of ''WESA'' (e.g., signed by two witnesses, etc.)

			may have the effect of revoking the will (''WESA'', s 55(1)(b)).

	Where a will is revoked in this way, a wills notice should be filed with the Department of Vital Statistics to record the revocation of the will (see [[Making_and_Executing_a_Will_(16:III)\|Section III.G: Filing a Wills Notice]]).		Where a will is revoked in this way, a wills notice should be filed with the Department of Vital Statistics to record the revocation of the will (see [[Making_and_Executing_a_Will_(16:III)\|Section III.G: Filing a Wills Notice]]).


	== B. By Destruction or Loss ==		== B. By Destruction or Loss ==

	A will may be revoked by destruction, per section 55(1)(c) of ''WESA''. There must be some physical act of destruction: “burning, tearing, or destruction of it in some other manner '''by the will-maker'''.” Though copies need not be destroyed, it would be safer to do so to ensure revocation. If a will is in the will-maker’s custody and is found destroyed, or if a lost will was last known to be in the will-maker’s custody, it will be presumed that the will-maker destroyed it. '''There is a presumption that a lost will has been destroyed and revoked, therefore, care must be taken in storing the will'''.		A will may be revoked by destruction, per section 55(1)(c) of ''WESA''. There must be some physical act of destruction: “burning, tearing, or destruction of it in some other manner '''by the will-maker'''.” Though copies need not be destroyed, it would be safer to do so to ensure revocation. If a will is in the will-maker’s custody and is found destroyed, or if a lost will was last known to be in the will-maker’s custody, it will be presumed that the will-maker destroyed it. '''There is a presumption that a lost will has been destroyed and revoked, therefore, care must be taken in storing the will.'''

	To prevent subsequent litigation, if a will is accidentally lost or destroyed, the will-maker should make a new one even though a copy of the lost or destroyed one survives. The will-maker should maintain clear custody of their will in a safe place known by the personal representative to guard against accidental loss or destruction.		To prevent subsequent litigation, if a will is accidentally lost or destroyed, the will-maker should make a new one even though a copy of the lost or destroyed one survives. The will-maker should maintain clear custody of their will in a safe place known by the personal representative to guard against accidental loss or destruction.

	Furthermore, for a will-maker to revoke a will by destruction, the will-maker must have the intention of revoking the will. Though there is a presumption that a will-maker who destroys a will does so with the intention of revoking it, this does not apply where they lack capacity to form the requisite intention.		Furthermore, for a will-maker to revoke a will by destruction, the will-maker must have the intention of revoking the will. Though there is a presumption that a will-maker who destroys a will does so with the intention of revoking it, this does '''not''' apply where they lack capacity to form the requisite intention.

			Also, there is the question of whether the intention to revoke the will was absolute or conditional. If it was absolute, revocation is complete. However, if the intent depended on the condition of reviving an old will or writing a new one and the condition or contingency has not been satisfied, the revocation is ineffective. This is known as the doctrine of dependent relative revocation: see [https://canlii.ca/t/1lwwd ''Jung, Re Estate of Horace Lee''], 2005 BCSC 1537.

			'''NOTE ON ELECTRONIC WILLS:''' Section 55.1 outlines how to revoke an electronic will. To revoke an electronic will, the will-maker or a person in the presence of the will-maker and by the will-maker’s direction:
			* can delete one or more electronic versions of the will or of part of the will with the intention of revoking it, or
			* may burn, tear or destroy all or part of a paper copy of the will in some manner, in the presence of a witness, with the intention of revoking all or part of the will.

	~~Also, there~~ is ~~the question~~ of ~~whether the~~ intention to revoke the will ~~was absolute or conditional. If it was absolute~~, ~~revocation~~ is ~~complete. However, if~~ the ~~intent depended on~~ the ~~condition of reviving an old~~ will ~~or writing a new one and the condition or contingency has not been satisfied, the revocation is ineffective. This is known as the doctrine of dependent relative revocation:~~ see ~~''[https://www~~.~~canlii~~.~~org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2005/2005bcsc1537/2005bcsc1537.html Jung, Re Estate of Horace Lee]''~~, ~~2005 BCSC 1537~~.		An inadvertent deletion of one or more electronic versions of a will is not evidence of an intention to revoke the will, so what is important is the intention of the will-maker; see Section III.D.2: Electronic Wills, for more information.

	:'''NOTE ON ELECTRONIC WILLS:''' Section 55.1 outlines how to revoke an electronic will. To revoke an electronic will, the will-maker or a person in the presence of the will-maker and by the will-maker’s direction: can delete one or more electronic versions of the will or of part of the will with the intention of revoking it, or may burn, tear or destroy all or part of a paper copy of the will in some manner, in the presence of a witness, with the intention of revoking all or part of the will. An inadvertent deletion of one or more electronic version of a will is not evidence of an intention to revoke the will, so what is important is the intention of the will-maker; see [[Making_and_Executing_a_Will_(16:III)\|Section III.D.2: Electronic Wills]], for more information.

	== C. By Subsequent Will ==		== C. By Subsequent Will ==

Clicklaw Editor at 21:19, 29 August 2023

2023-08-29T21:19:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:19, 29 August 2023
Line 41:		Line 41:


	{{LSLAP Manual Navbox\|type=chapters15-22}}		{{LSLAP Manual Navbox\|type=chapters15-23}}

LSLAP at 00:07, 25 August 2023

2023-08-25T00:07:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:07, 25 August 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= ~~July 8~~, ~~2022~~}}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= June 30, 2023}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = wills}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = wills}}

			Revocation of wills is governed by sections 55 and 55.1 of ''WESA''. These sections outline the only ways in which a will may be revoked. Section 56 of ''WESA'' provides that if a will-maker gifts, appoints as an executor, or confers power to a person who subsequently ceases to be the spouse of the will-maker under section 2(2) before the will-maker’s death, only that gift, appointment, and/or conferment is revoked, not the entire will. The gift to the ex-spouse must be distributed as if they died before the will-maker. The application of section 56 of ''WESA'' is subject to any contrary intention in the will.

	== A. By Subsequent Writing ==		== A. By Subsequent Writing ==
Line 16:		Line 18:
	Furthermore, for a will-maker to revoke a will by destruction, the will-maker must have the intention of revoking the will. Though there is a presumption that a will-maker who destroys a will does so with the intention of revoking it, this does not apply where they lack capacity to form the requisite intention.		Furthermore, for a will-maker to revoke a will by destruction, the will-maker must have the intention of revoking the will. Though there is a presumption that a will-maker who destroys a will does so with the intention of revoking it, this does not apply where they lack capacity to form the requisite intention.

	Also, there is the question of whether the intention to revoke the will was absolute or conditional. If it was absolute, revocation is complete. However, if the intent depended on the condition of reviving an old will or writing a new one and the condition or contingency has not been satisfied, the revocation is ineffective. This is known as the doctrine of dependent relative revocation: see ''Jung v Lee ~~Estate~~'', 2005 BCSC 1537.		Also, there is the question of whether the intention to revoke the will was absolute or conditional. If it was absolute, revocation is complete. However, if the intent depended on the condition of reviving an old will or writing a new one and the condition or contingency has not been satisfied, the revocation is ineffective. This is known as the doctrine of dependent relative revocation: see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2005/2005bcsc1537/2005bcsc1537.html Jung, Re Estate of Horace Lee]'', 2005 BCSC 1537.

	:'''NOTE ON ELECTRONIC WILLS:''' Section 55.1 outlines how to revoke an electronic will. To revoke an electronic will, the will-maker or a person in the presence of the will-maker and by the will-maker’s direction: can delete one or more electronic versions of the will or of part of the will with the intention of revoking it, or may burn, tear or destroy all or part of a paper copy of the will in some manner, in the presence of a witness, with the intention of revoking all or part of the will. An inadvertent deletion of one or more electronic version of a will is not evidence of an intention to revoke the will, so what is important is the intention of the will-maker; see [[Making_and_Executing_a_Will_(16:III)\|Section III.D.2: Electronic Wills]], for more information.		:'''NOTE ON ELECTRONIC WILLS:''' Section 55.1 outlines how to revoke an electronic will. To revoke an electronic will, the will-maker or a person in the presence of the will-maker and by the will-maker’s direction: can delete one or more electronic versions of the will or of part of the will with the intention of revoking it, or may burn, tear or destroy all or part of a paper copy of the will in some manner, in the presence of a witness, with the intention of revoking all or part of the will. An inadvertent deletion of one or more electronic version of a will is not evidence of an intention to revoke the will, so what is important is the intention of the will-maker; see [[Making_and_Executing_a_Will_(16:III)\|Section III.D.2: Electronic Wills]], for more information.

Clicklaw Editor: Clicklaw Editor moved page Revocation of a Will (16:V) to Revocation of a Will (16:VI)

2023-07-28T20:46:04Z

Clicklaw Editor moved page Revocation of a Will (16:V) to Revocation of a Will (16:VI)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:46, 28 July 2023
(No difference)

Clicklaw Editor: /* B. By Destruction or Loss */

2022-10-14T04:04:35Z

B. By Destruction or Loss

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:04, 14 October 2022
Line 18:		Line 18:
	Also, there is the question of whether the intention to revoke the will was absolute or conditional. If it was absolute, revocation is complete. However, if the intent depended on the condition of reviving an old will or writing a new one and the condition or contingency has not been satisfied, the revocation is ineffective. This is known as the doctrine of dependent relative revocation: see ''Jung v Lee Estate'', 2005 BCSC 1537.		Also, there is the question of whether the intention to revoke the will was absolute or conditional. If it was absolute, revocation is complete. However, if the intent depended on the condition of reviving an old will or writing a new one and the condition or contingency has not been satisfied, the revocation is ineffective. This is known as the doctrine of dependent relative revocation: see ''Jung v Lee Estate'', 2005 BCSC 1537.

	:'''NOTE ON ELECTRONIC WILLS:''' Section 55.1 outlines how to revoke an electronic will. To revoke an electronic will, the will-maker or a person in the presence of the will-maker and by the will-maker’s direction: can delete one or more electronic versions of the will or of part of the will with the intention of revoking it, or may burn, tear or destroy all or part of a paper copy of the will in some manner, in the presence of a witness, with the intention of revoking all or part of the will. An inadvertent deletion of one or more electronic version of a will is not evidence of an intention to revoke the will, so what is important is the intention of the will-maker; see [[Making_and_Executing_a_Will_(16:III)#D\|Section III.D.2: Electronic Wills]], for more information.		:'''NOTE ON ELECTRONIC WILLS:''' Section 55.1 outlines how to revoke an electronic will. To revoke an electronic will, the will-maker or a person in the presence of the will-maker and by the will-maker’s direction: can delete one or more electronic versions of the will or of part of the will with the intention of revoking it, or may burn, tear or destroy all or part of a paper copy of the will in some manner, in the presence of a witness, with the intention of revoking all or part of the will. An inadvertent deletion of one or more electronic version of a will is not evidence of an intention to revoke the will, so what is important is the intention of the will-maker; see [[Making_and_Executing_a_Will_(16:III)\|Section III.D.2: Electronic Wills]], for more information.

	== C. By Subsequent Will ==		== C. By Subsequent Will ==

Clicklaw Editor: /* B. By Destruction or Loss */

2022-10-14T04:03:47Z

B. By Destruction or Loss

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:03, 14 October 2022
Line 18:		Line 18:
	Also, there is the question of whether the intention to revoke the will was absolute or conditional. If it was absolute, revocation is complete. However, if the intent depended on the condition of reviving an old will or writing a new one and the condition or contingency has not been satisfied, the revocation is ineffective. This is known as the doctrine of dependent relative revocation: see ''Jung v Lee Estate'', 2005 BCSC 1537.		Also, there is the question of whether the intention to revoke the will was absolute or conditional. If it was absolute, revocation is complete. However, if the intent depended on the condition of reviving an old will or writing a new one and the condition or contingency has not been satisfied, the revocation is ineffective. This is known as the doctrine of dependent relative revocation: see ''Jung v Lee Estate'', 2005 BCSC 1537.

	:'''NOTE ON ELECTRONIC WILLS:''' Section 55.1 outlines how to revoke an electronic will. To revoke an electronic will, the will-maker or a person in the presence of the will-maker and by the will-maker’s direction: can delete one or more electronic versions of the will or of part of the will with the intention of revoking it, or may burn, tear or destroy all or part of a paper copy of the will in some manner, in the presence of a witness, with the intention of revoking all or part of the will. An inadvertent deletion of one or more electronic version of a will is not evidence of an intention to revoke the will, so what is important is the intention of the will-maker; see ~~'''~~Section III.D.2: Electronic Wills~~'''~~, for more information.		:'''NOTE ON ELECTRONIC WILLS:''' Section 55.1 outlines how to revoke an electronic will. To revoke an electronic will, the will-maker or a person in the presence of the will-maker and by the will-maker’s direction: can delete one or more electronic versions of the will or of part of the will with the intention of revoking it, or may burn, tear or destroy all or part of a paper copy of the will in some manner, in the presence of a witness, with the intention of revoking all or part of the will. An inadvertent deletion of one or more electronic version of a will is not evidence of an intention to revoke the will, so what is important is the intention of the will-maker; see [[Making_and_Executing_a_Will_(16:III)#D\|Section III.D.2: Electronic Wills]], for more information.

	== C. By Subsequent Will ==		== C. By Subsequent Will ==