In previous blogs, I explored the best practice for lawyers when drafting wills, from how to conduct client meetings to the importance of comprehensive notes. These records can become critical in legal proceedings, especially if the will is contested. Today, we’ll dive into the 2019 Ontario case Slover v. Rellinger, which demonstrates how a drafting lawyer’s documentation can significantly influence the outcome of undue influence allegations.

Case Background: Slover v. Rellinger 2019 ONSC 6497 (CanLII)

The Deceased, a wealthy individual with a net worth of over $21 million, passed away in 2016, leaving her children, Joan and James, in a dispute over her estate. James was named as the primary beneficiary in her May 2013 will, receiving 75% of her estate. However, after August 2013, the Deceased executed additional documents under circumstances that Joan alleged were influenced by James, resulting in her being excluded entirely.

Joan argued that these later documents were products of undue influence, and she sought to have the estate distributed according to the earlier Will, which provided her with a 25% share. The court ultimately ruled in Joan’s favor, deeming the post-August 2013 documents invalid due to undue influence, thereby restoring the earlier Will’s terms.

The Court’s View on Estate Planning Documents

In his decision, Justice Sanfilippo placed significant weight on the estate planning documents, recognizing them as central to assessing the Deceased’s testamentary capacity and examining potential undue influence. He rejected James’s argument that the documents were merely contracts for tax planning, pointing out their clear testamentary nature. Justice Sanfilippo’s remarks capture the essence of his analysis:

“The nature and character of the Estate Planning Documents is important to my analysis of their validity. This is because my assessment of Gertrude’s capacity and the issue of undue influence, and the application of the appropriate test, presumption, and burden, will depend on my characterization of the Estate Planning Documents.”

Justice Sanfilippo found that the documents focused on the distribution of the Deceased’s wealth upon her death, which framed his analysis of undue influence. He observed that James’s argument that these were non-testamentary documents wasted valuable trial time, as the documents clearly related to the Deceased’s estate planning and her intent to distribute assets upon her passing.

Conclusion

Slover v. Rellinger demonstrates the importance of a drafting lawyer’s documentation in will disputes. Detailed notes, especially when estate plans include substantial assets and complex distributions, are critical for upholding a will’s validity and defending against claims of undue influence.