What is the test for a variation of a will?

The leading case on variation of wills is Tataryn v. Tataryn Estate, 1994 CanLII 51 (S.C.); [1994] 2 S.C.R. 807. In that case Madam Justice McLachlin, as she then was, directed that in deciding whether or not to vary a will and to what extent, a court must attempt to balance testamentary autonomy with the testator’s legal and moral obligations. At pp. 823-824, Madam Justice McLachlin stated: In many cases, there will be a number of ways of dividing the assets which are adequate, just and equitable. In other words, there will be a wide range of options, any of which might be considered appropriate in the circumstances. Provided that the testator has chosen an option which falls below his or her obligations as defined by reference to legal and moral norms, should the court make an order which achieves the justice the testator failed to achieve. In the absence of other evidence a will should be seen as reflecting the means chosen by the testator to meet his legitimate concerns and provided for an ordered administration and distribution of his estate in the best interests of the persons and institutions closest to him. It is the exercise by the testator of his freedom to dispose of his property and is to be interfered with not lightly but only in so far as the statute requires.