In my previous blog dated February 27, 2024, I discussed the Court evaluation of competing evidence to determine whether a Will was destroyed by the testator or by someone else with a motivation to benefit themselves under a prior Will or on an intestacy. Today, we will further explore this topic, focusing on a recent case, Stoller Estate v. Hillel Lodge Long Term Care Foundation [2017] O.J. No. 5421, which sheds light on the court’s scrutiny in such matters.

The case revolves around the passing of the deceased on May 2, 2016, leaving behind an estate valued at nearly $7 million. The deceased’s will, dated August 10, 2010, designated the Hillel Lodge Long Term Care Centre as the beneficiary of a brass candelabra, with the Hillel Lodge Long Term Care Foundation being the sole beneficiary of the residue of the estate. While the original will was not located, a copy existed, prompting the central question of whether the presumption that the deceased intentionally destroyed the will could be refuted.

The court, having recognized the established nature of the initial three tests, chose to skip them and proceeded directly to the fourth test. This particular test involves scrutinizing and challenging the presumption that the will was intentionally destroyed by the testator with the intent of revoking it.

For a more comprehensive analysis of Sorkos, Suzana Popovic-Montag provided an in-depth blog on November 16, 2022, with the link attached for reference.

The court conducted inquiries into various aspects, including the reasonableness of the will’s terms, the deceased’s relationship with the beneficiary, the timing of the destruction of personal effects in relation to the search for the will, the deceased’s nature in caring for personal effects, any property dispositions during the deceased’s lifetime confirming or contradicting the will’s terms, statements made by the deceased aligning or conflicting with the will, whether the deceased had a secure place to store valuable papers, and evidence indicating the deceased’s understanding of the consequences of not having a will.

After careful consideration of all presented facts and evidence, the court concluded that there was sufficient proof, on a balance of probabilities, to establish the absence of an intention by the deceased to revoke the will. Consequently, the will was deemed valid, and the copy submitted as evidence was admitted to probate as the last will of Sarah Stoller.

Thanks for reading and have a great weekend!

Tiansheng Wen