Leanne Catherine Storms

The appellant appealed a judgment interpreting the will of Eleanor Martha Devonport.

The application judge found that a specific bequest of the Hopewell Avenue property to the testator's predeceased son passed to the son's wife pursuant to section 31 of the Succession Law Reform Act (the anti-lapse provision), rather than lapsing into the residue of the estate.

The appellant argued the will showed a contrary intention and that the solicitor's evidence should have been admitted.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's interpretation of the anti-lapse provision or the will's terms.

The court also upheld the occupation rent requirement, finding it was properly raised and calculated.

This application concerned the interpretation of Eleanor Martha Devonport's will regarding a residential property gifted to her son, Peter, who predeceased her.

The applicant, Peter's spouse and estate trustee, argued the property passed to her via the anti-lapse provision (s. 31) of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The respondent, Eleanor's surviving child and estate trustee, contended Eleanor's will expressed a contrary intention, causing the gift to lapse into the residue of the estate.

The court found no contrary intention in the will to oust the anti-lapse provision, ruling the property passed to the applicant.

The court also dismissed the respondent's unjust enrichment claim and ordered the respondent to account for dealings with the property and pay occupation rent to the applicant.