The testator willed her home to one of her daughters and named her sole executor
The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a ruling that set aside a 2016 will and property transfer after finding that the testator, who was in a vulnerable state, lacked capacity and was unduly influenced.
The testator, who passed away in 2018, had two daughters. She lived in a home she initially co-owned with her husband until he died in 2005. Her primary assets were her home and a bank account containing her life savings.
In 2007, she made a will, leaving her estate equally to her daughters, Bernadette and Angela. She also named both daughters executors of her will. Bernadette moved in with the testator in 2009, while Angela lived nearby with her husband and three children.
In 2016, the testator created a new will naming Bernadette as the sole executor and bequeathing her the home they shared. That same day, the testator transferred the home's title into joint ownership with Bernadette.
After her mother died, Angela contested the will and property transfer, alleging undue influence and lack of capacity. Bernadette argued that their mother had full capacity and intended to compensate her for caregiving.
The trial judge found Angela's evidence more credible and determined that the testator had been particularly vulnerable due to diminished mental capacity. The court determined that undue influence affected the testator. As a result, the judge set aside the 2016 will and the property transfer.
Further scrutiny of the testator's bank account revealed that, after Bernadette was granted power of attorney in March 2016, the account balance dropped from over $80,000 to approximately $2,500 by May 2016. The court found that Bernadette could not satisfactorily explain the withdrawals and ordered her to repay $62,500 to the estate.
Bernadette appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in her factual findings and misapplied legal principles. However, the Ontario Court of Appeal rejected these claims, stating that the trial judge had correctly applied the law and thoroughly justified her conclusions. The appellate court commended the trial judge's careful analysis and upheld the decision and cost order. Ultimately, the court rejected the appeal and ordered Bernadette to pay costs, which would be deducted from her share of the estate.
