In the matter of the Estate of Harold Franklin Campbell (Re), 2023 ONSC 4315, the Court deliberated on how to apply the Succession Law Reform Act (“SLRA“) in regards to validity and revival of the Deceased’s Will, given the existence of two handwritten notes by the Deceased.
Section 21.1(1) of the SLRA provides the Court with the ability to validate a Will that was not executed in accordance with the Act:
21.1 (1) If the Superior Court of Justice is satisfied that a document or writing that was not properly executed or made under this Act sets out the testamentary intentions of a deceased or an intention of a deceased to revoke, alter or revive a will of the deceased, the Court may, on application, order that the document or writing is as valid and fully effective as the will of the deceased, or as the revocation, alteration or revival of the will of the deceased, as if it had been properly executed or made.
Section 19 (1)(b) of the SLRA provides the Court with the ability to revive a Will by a subsequent codicil:
19 (1) A will or part of a will that has been in any manner revoked is revived only,
…
(b) by a codicil that has been made in accordance with the provisions of this Part, that shows an intention to give effect to the will or part that was revoked
Background
Harold, born on March 17, 1941, had two children, Christopher and Lisa, from his first marriage. Following the death of his first wife, Harold executed a Will on March 15, 1996, designating Christopher and Lisa as beneficiaries and estate trustees. Harold later married Carol on October 28, 2000, leading to the revocation of the Will under the SLRA. However, Harold made handwritten notes on November 16, 2016, and June 9, 2017, detailing specific bequests to Carol and instructions regarding his remains, both of which he signed and stapled to the inside cover of the Will.
Issue
The sole question before the Court was whether the Will was effectively revived by the handwritten notes.
Analysis
Christopher argued for the revival of the Will under section 21.1(1) of the SLRA, proposing a four-step process. However, the Court found that the November 16, 2016 handwritten note effectively revived the Will under section 19(1)(b) of the Act. The court determined that Harold’s intention to give effect to the Will was evident from the contents of the handwritten note.
Decision
The court declined Christopher’s proposed approach under section 21.1(1) and instead upheld the revival of the Will based on the clear intent expressed in the November 16, 2016 handwritten note. The Court dismissed Christopher’s argument regarding Harold’s alleged intention to renew the revoked Will, emphasizing the need for clear evidence or inference to support such claims.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Court found that the Will was revived but it arrived at its conclusion in a different way than that proposed by Christoper. Therefore, the Court granted his application for a small estate certificate, recognizing the validity of the Will and its revival through the handwritten note dated November 16, 2016.
Thanks for reading and have a great day!