What is the legal test of knowledge and approval and testamentary capacity in a Will?

Ontario, Canada


The following excerpt is from Quinlan v. Caron, 2011 ONSC 318 (CanLII):

Both the plaintiff and the defendant agree in principle with the law that needs to be applied in the circumstances. It is set out in Scott v. Cousins, [2001] O.J. No. 19 (S.C.J.) at para. 39 by Cullity J. as follows: 1. The person propounding the will has the legal burden of proof with respect to due execution, knowledge and approval and testamentary capacity. 2. A person opposing probate has the legal burden of proving undue influence. 3. The standard of proof on each of the above issues is the civil standard of proof on a balance of probabilities. 4. In attempting to discharge the burden of proof of knowledge and approval and testamentary capacity, the propounder of the will is aided by a rebuttable presumption. Upon proof that the will was duly executed with the requisite formalities, after having been read over to or by a testator who appeared to understand it, it will generally be presumed that the testator knew and approved of the contents and had the necessary testamentary capacity. 5. This presumption “simply casts an evidential burden on those attacking the will.” 6. The evidential burden can be satisfied by introducing evidence of suspicious circumstances – namely, “evidence which, if accepted, would tend to negative knowledge and approval or testamentary capacity. In this event, the legal burden reverts to the propounder.” 7. The existence of suspicious circumstances does not impose a higher standard of proof on the propounder of the will than the civil standard of proof on a balance of probabilities. However, the extent of the proof required is proportionate to the gravity of the suspicion. 8. A well-grounded suspicion of undue influence will not, per se, discharge the burden of proving undue influence on those challenging the will: It has been authoritatively established that suspicious circumstances, even though they may raise a suspicion concerning the presence of fraud or undue influence, do no more than rebut the presumption to which I have referred. This requires the propounder of the will to prove knowledge and approval and testamentary capacity. The burden of proof with respect and fraud and undue influence remains with those attacking the will. TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY

Other Questions


What is the legal burden of proving due execution, knowledge and approval and testamentary capacity in a will? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the legal test for having a beneficiary be a child of full legal capacity? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the legal test for "knowing assistance" in a claim for constructive knowledge? (Ontario, Canada)
Can an employer in its capacity as a sponsor (and not as plan administrator) obtain legal advice to amend a pension plan? (Ontario, Canada)
Is there a rebuttable presumption of knowledge of a client's knowledge of an order? (Ontario, Canada)
In what circumstances will a court refuse to approve legal fees for a solicitor retained by a guardian? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the legal test for knowledge? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the legal test to approve a third party funding agreement? (Ontario, Canada)
Can the Commissioner of Public Prosecutions force a city council to approve an expenditure which has not been approved? (Ontario, Canada)
Is a will validly made if the will-maker still has testamentary capacity? (Ontario, Canada)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.