K. Juriansz

The applicant sought an order declaring a December 2014 will as the valid last will of the deceased, and invalidating a subsequent June 2015 will propounded by the respondent.

The respondent, who was the deceased's caregiver, had drafted the June 2015 will which named her as the primary beneficiary and estate trustee.

The court found that the respondent failed to prove due execution of the June 2015 will.

Furthermore, the court found significant suspicious circumstances surrounding the preparation of the will, including the deceased's isolation, dependency on the respondent, and the respondent's unauthorized use of the deceased's funds.

The respondent failed to rebut the presumption of invalidity with corroborating evidence.

The court declared the December 2014 will valid.

Purchasers brought a motion for summary judgment seeking specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property after the vendors refused to close.

The vendors argued the agreement was unenforceable because they did not sign it, their spouses did not consent under the Family Law Act, and the purchasers allegedly waived conditions late.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the vendors’ evidence not credible, concluding that they had executed the agreement and that the purchasers’ conditions were waived on time.

The court also held that spousal consent was not required for enforceability of the contract itself and that service of the motion on the spouses was unnecessary.

Finding the property unique due to its large pie-shaped lot, proximity to family, and access to transit, the court granted specific performance.