Estate litigation often raises complex questions of undue influence, testamentary capacity, and whether a testator truly understood and approved of their will’s contents. A recent decision from the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Baylis Estate v. Marcotte (“Baylis”), illustrates how courts handle these contentious issues and when such disputes merit a trial rather than summary resolution.
Background
In Baylis, three estranged adult siblings, Julien, Jeremy, and Claire, became embroiled in litigation over the validity of their mother’s will, which left the vast majority of her estate to her son, Julien, excluding her daughter Claire entirely. Julien, appointed as executor, sought to prove the will in solemn form and rectify what he argued was an error: specifically, the beneficiary designation concerning an apartment in Calgary.
Claire opposed Julien’s application, alleging undue influence and questioning her mother’s testamentary capacity at the time the will was executed.
Judicial Observations and Reasoning
Justice G.P. Weatherill determined the following factors raised sufficient doubts to warrant a trial:
- Significant Disparity: Julien received approximately 93% of the deceased’s estate, raising concerns over fairness and unexplained favoritism.
- Undue Influence Concerns: Julien had been actively involved in arranging the preparation of the will and was noted by the drafting lawyer as exerting “some influence.” Further, text messages between Julien and the deceased hinted at tension and potentially abusive dynamics.
- Errors and Omissions: Significant discrepancies existed between the lawyer’s original instructions checklist and the final executed will, including asset allocations and unexplained omissions.
Judicial Reasoning: When Is a Trial Required?
Justice G.P. Weatherill determined that these discrepancies, coupled with Julien’s influence over the deceased, raised genuine issues requiring a trial. The decision draws heavily on principles established in previous cases, notably Kerfoot v. Richter (2018 BCCA 238), underscoring that courts will refer matters to trial where:
- There are genuine factual disputes;
- Serious allegations such as undue influence or testamentary incapacity are raised;
- Documentary evidence alone is insufficient to resolve material questions affecting the case outcome.
The court clarified that the onus rests upon the party alleging undue influence or incapacity to demonstrate, with cogent evidence, that a real issue exists.
Key Takeaways
- Undue Influence Claims Require Rigorous Scrutiny: Allegations must be supported by evidence that suggests the will-maker’s free will may have been compromised, not merely by speculative assertions.
- Capacity Assessments are Nuanced: Even if capacity concerns are not definitively proven at an early stage, evidence suggesting irregularities or coercion could still warrant a trial.
- Importance of Detailed Record-Keeping: Lawyers drafting wills must maintain accurate, detailed records, as the court heavily scrutinizes these documents in evaluating testamentary intent.
Practical Implications for Legal Practitioners
This case highlights key considerations for estate practitioners:
- Ensure thorough documentation of client instructions, particularly in complex family dynamics;
- Be vigilant for red flags like isolation of a testator or heavy beneficiary involvement;
- Recognize that courts will favour trial over summary disposition if substantive concerns regarding undue influence or capacity arise.
Conclusion
The decision in Baylis is a valuable reminder that disputes involving estate validity often hinge on careful judicial examination of both factual and circumstantial evidence. Practitioners should anticipate and strategically prepare for trials in estate litigation matters where undue influence or testamentary capacity issues emerge prominently.
Thanks for reading!
Sumit Malhotra