The Will With a Suspicious Drafting and an Unclear Residue
Your client's mother died leaving a will prepared by the mother's nephew, a paralegal, two years before death. The will leaves the house to the client, $50,000 to a charity, and 'the residue to be divided equally among my children.' The mother had three children: the client, a daughter who predeceased her leaving two children, and a son who is alive. The will does not define 'children' or address the predeceased daughter's issue. The estate is worth $1.2 million, of which the house is $700,000. The nephew drafted the will and is named as executor; he also received a $100,000 specific gift. The client is concerned about (1) whether the residue includes the predeceased daughter's children, (2) whether the nephew's role and gift create a conflict, and (3) whether the will is vulnerable to challenge. The mother's capacity was questioned by a neighbour in the months before death, though her family doctor saw her regularly.
1. How should the residue be distributed, and what interpretive principles apply?
Read the worked answer
This is a question of construction, not of the testator's unexpressed intention. The court asks what the words mean in their context, aided by the armchair rule (the circumstances known to the testator) and the presumption against intestacy.
The phrase 'my children' is prima facie a word of purchase referring to the three children living at the date of the will. But the daughter predeceased. Two questions arise: does the residue share vest in the daughter's estate, and do her children take?
Under the Ontario succession legislation, where a beneficiary dies before the testator leaving issue, the gift may be saved by the anti-lapse provision, but that provision applies to gifts to the testator's issue only where the predeceased beneficiary left issue who survive the testator. The daughter was the testator's issue and left two surviving children, so the anti-lapse provision likely operates to direct her share to her children.
Alternatively, if 'children' is read as a class to be ascertained at death, the daughter is excluded and her children take nothing, and the residue splits between the two surviving children. The anti-lapse route is the more protective and avoids partial intestacy, which the court presumes against.
Advise the client that the anti-lapse analysis is strong but not certain, and that the charity's $50,000 is a specific gift unaffected by residue. Obtain the will's full text and any drafting file.
2. Assess the conflict of interest and the challenge to validity, and identify what evidence the client should gather.
Read the worked answer
Conflict: the nephew is both the drafting solicitor-equivalent and a beneficiary of a $100,000 specific gift, and is named executor. A person who drafts a will in which they take a benefit is in a position of potential undue influence, and the court will scrutinize the transaction. There is no automatic invalidity, but the evidential burden shifts: the beneficiary may be required to show the gift was the testator's free and informed act. The prudent course is for the nephew to renounce executorship or for the estate to obtain independent representation; he should not act as executor while defending his own gift.
Validity: capacity, knowledge and approval, and undue influence are distinct. Capacity is assessed at execution. The neighbour's concerns are lay opinion and carry little weight against the doctor's records, but the drafting by an interested party and the timing (two years before death) invite scrutiny.
Evidence to gather: the drafting file and any notes; the execution witnesses; the doctor's records and any cognitive assessments; the mother's correspondence about her intentions; bank records showing the $100,000 gift's provenance; and the nephew's dealings with the mother.
Advise: the will is likely valid on capacity, but the nephew's gift is vulnerable and the residue construction is the real dispute. Consider a without-prejudice proposal that preserves the client's house and resolves the residue by agreement, avoiding a costly trial over a $1.2 million estate.