The applicant, Deanna McKinlay, sought a declaration that a document she wrote and the deceased signed was a valid testamentary instrument for the estate of Virginia Beecroft.

In the alternative, she sought a declaration that the deceased’s 2020 Will and Codicil should govern.

The court found the proffered document was not a valid will, as it was not a fixed and final expression of the deceased’s testamentary intentions, and ordered the estate to be administered in accordance with the 2020 Will and Codicil.

The court considered whether the Last Will and Testament of Lynn Gloria Gamble, dated January 7, 2021, should be found valid and fully effective despite irregularities in its execution and the absence of the original.

The applicant, Robert Dunham, sought to have the will validated and a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee issued.

The respondent, Clarence Earl Gamble Jr., argued that the will was revoked and requested production of RBC safety deposit box access records.

The court found that the applicant had rebutted the presumption of revocation, validated the will under section 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act, and deemed the Windsor Cancer Centre Foundation to be the intended beneficiary.

No costs were awarded.

This application concerns the interpretation of the Holograph Will of David Dewling Moss, who died in 2024.

The court was asked to determine whether the Canadian Cancer Society is the intended beneficiary of the estate, despite the will referring only to the "Cancer Society," and whether any other next of kin could be beneficiaries.

The court found that the Deceased intended to benefit the Canadian Cancer Society, and that the will, though informal, expressed a fixed and final intention.

The court also found that all reasonable steps were taken to identify and serve potential beneficiaries, and no one opposed the application.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought production of the deceased’s lawyer’s estate planning file to search for documents that might support a claim under section 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act, which allows a court to validate documents as wills even if not properly executed.

The court held that the “wills exception” to solicitor-client privilege does not extend to such fishing expeditions for near-will documents, and that privilege is not waived unless there is evidence of a fixed and final testamentary intention.

The motion for production was dismissed, but other relief was granted on consent.

The applicant sought to validate his deceased mother's will under section 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The will, drafted by a lawyer, was improperly executed due to a missing witness signature by the lawyer, despite the deceased believing all formalities were met.

The respondent, the deceased's sister and co-beneficiary, did not oppose the application.

The court found the will clearly expressed the deceased's testamentary intentions and was authentic, representing a textbook case for the application of the new curative provision.

The court ordered the will to be valid and fully effective as if it had been properly executed.

The applicant sought directions under Rule 75.06(1) to access the files of his deceased mother's lawyer, Maria Simone, to investigate a potential challenge to her 2014 will under s. 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The applicant, a 10% beneficiary under the 2014 will, wished to review draft wills and notes to determine if a later testamentary intention existed, without formally challenging the 2014 will due to a disinheritance clause.

The court expressed reluctance to grant pre-action discovery, citing concerns about fishing expeditions, solicitor-client privilege, and the lack of a pleaded cause of action.

Despite the estate trustee's consent, the court declined to grant the order on an uncontested case conference, requiring the applicant to return with researched legal argument on the novel issues raised by s. 21.1 and the application of s. 9 of the Estates Act.