Difference between revisions of "Making and Executing a Will (16:III)"

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 Riach v Ferris, [1934] SCR 725; see also more recent applications in Clark v Nash, (1989) 61 DLR (4th) 409 (BCCA) and Johnson v Pelkey, (1997) 36 BCLR (3d) 40 (SC)).

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 on propounders of the will to prove that the testator had knowledge and approved of the contents of their will when it was made. In Vout v Hay, [1995] 2 SCR 876 at para 25 [Vout], the Court held that suspicious circumstance may be raised by:  

The Court in "Vout" held that where suspicious circumstances are proven, 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.