Heather Watson

The applicants sought interpretation of their late mother's will to determine if they were liable for income tax on a RRIF for which they were designated beneficiaries.

The will contained a clause requiring them to pay tax on an RRSP, but the deceased had subsequently converted the RRSP to a RRIF and made a new beneficiary designation outside the will without any tax condition.

The court applied the armchair rule and found that the will's reference to an RRSP did not apply to the RRIF.

The court ordered the estate trustee to pay the applicants their $150,000 legacy without deduction for RRIF taxes, plus 5 percent interest under the rule of convenience.

The applicant sought to validate a collection of handwritten and will-kit documents as the deceased's later will, or alternatively to undo an earlier validation order and have the estate administered on an intestacy.

The court applied the s. 21.1 substantial-compliance framework under the Succession Law Reform Act and accepted authenticity, but found the incomplete documents did not establish fixed and final testamentary intentions.

The absence of key pages, executor designation, and residue clause, together with references to an existing "copy of will" and "original will," supported the inference that the materials were ancillary directions rather than a new will.

The court also rejected the alleged revocation of the previously validated 2004 will and held that ordinary civil costs rules applied.

The applicant sought an order validating an undated, unwitnessed fill-in-the-blanks document as the deceased's last will and testament under section 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The respondent brother opposed, arguing the document was merely a draft and that his subsequent reconciliation with the deceased vitiated her intention to exclude him.

The court found the document represented the deceased's fixed and final testamentary intentions at the time it was made, and that a subsequent change in circumstances does not revoke a will.

The application was granted and the document was validated.

The appellant, a teacher at a private school, appealed the dismissal of her constructive dismissal claim by way of summary judgment.

She alleged that the respondent school altered the terms of her employment by failing to protect her from a confrontation with a student's parents over a mark, undermining her authority by having another teacher read and mark assignments, and assigning passing grades to students who had not completed all assignments.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment dismissal, finding no evidence that the school altered the terms of employment or breached any policy, and that the school's response to the appellant's complaints was measured and reasonable.