2 total
The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of a will challenge under Rule 75.06.
The appellants challenged the validity of their deceased father's 2021 will and an inter vivos property transfer, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by the respondents.
The application judge dismissed their motion for directions, finding they failed to meet the minimal evidentiary threshold under Rule 75.06.
The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the application judge's assessment of the evidence regarding capacity or undue influence, nor in his treatment of the evidence or sufficiency of reasons for dismissing the challenge to the property transfer.
Motion for directions in will challenge dismissed as applicants failed to meet minimal evidentiary threshold.
The applicants, adult siblings, sought a declaration that their late father lacked capacity or was unduly influenced when he executed a new will in 2021 that favoured their brother.
They brought a motion for directions and production of the deceased's medical, legal, and financial records.
Applying the minimal evidentiary threshold from Neuberger v. York, the court found that the applicants failed to adduce credible evidence of incapacity or undue influence.
The court noted that the applicants' evidence consisted largely of conjecture, cherry-picked medical records, and unsupported allegations against the father's caregiver.
The motion and application for directions were dismissed.
