If a person has been found incapable of having the capacity to make a will, the law nonetheless recognizes that such person may experience lucid intervals during which testamentary capacity may be temporarily regained. A will made during a lucid interval may be valid.
The legal test for testamentary capacity is the same regardless of whether the testator suffers from a condition that generally deprives him or her of testamentary capacity. The test was summarized in Re Schwartz, 1970 CarswellOnt 163, as follows:
The testator must be sufficiently clear in his understanding and memory to know, on his own, and in a general way (a) the nature and extent of his property, (b) the persons who are the natural objects of his bounty, and (c) the testamentary provisions he is making; and he must, moreover, be capable of (d) appreciating these factors in relations to each other; and (e) forming an orderly desire as to the disposition of his property.
The critical time during which the testator must have capacity is when instructions are given and when the will is executed. In Re Weidenberger Estate, the Court stated:
What the Deceased’s state of mind was one year before or one year after the date of the document is not overly relevant. The courts have recognized that a Deceased may only have temporary periods of rational and lucid behaviour, and in such moments, an individual may competently dispose of his or her estate.
If a testator generally lacks testamentary capacity, but makes a will during a lucid interval, the evidentiary burden on the propounder is heavier than would otherwise be the case.
We have previously blogged on criticism of the concept of the lucid interval. Some studies suggest that cognitive fluctuations are often short in duration, often seconds or minutes. Such a period of time is unlikely to be sufficient to execute a will. Despite this criticism, the legal concept of the lucid interval remains recognized by the Courts. The concept was recently applied to uphold the validity of a will in Re Zukas Estate, a decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta.
Thank you for reading.
Other articles you might enjoy: