Laur v. Estate of Rosemary Eileen Ball, 2025 ONSC 1366

COURT FILE NO.: CV-23-8-0000
DATE: 2025/02/28
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
IN THE ESTATE OF JOYCE EILEEN LAUR, DECEASED
RE: Robert Jackson Laur, Applicant
AND: The Estate of Rosemary Eileen Ball by Her Executor, William (Bill) Ball, Randy Wynfred Laur, Personally and as the Estate Trustees of the Estate of Joyce Eileen Laur, Gary Charles Ray Laur, James Grant Laur, Jacqueline Muller and Gwenda McConnell, Respondents
BEFORE: Justice Joseph Perfetto
COUNSEL: Jennifer Ng, Counsel for the Applicant; M. Paul Morrissey and Leanne Kuchynski, Counsel for the Respondents
HEARD: May 21-24, 2024

Introduction

The applicant brought an Application pursuant to Rule 14.05(3)(a), (b), (e), (g), and (h) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg. 194. The Application required the Court’s consideration of the validity and testamentary import of a 2019 Option Agreement, 2019 Wills, and two handwritten documents. The applicant sought a determination that the 2019 Option Agreement is valid and enforceable, as are any references in the Wills to an option, and also sought a declaration that the handwritten documents are authentic and that at least one constitutes a holograph will to be read in conjunction with the Option Agreement. The respondents argued the Option Agreement is invalid due to incapacity and undue influence, and that the document advanced as a holograph Will does not reflect a fixed and final testamentary intention and was a result of undue influence.

This Application proceeded by way of a four-day trial involving five witnesses, an Agreed Statement of Fact (ASF), and eight volumes of materials, including medical records, expert opinion evidence, and transcripts of examinations. The Court reviewed all evidence in detail but references only those items salient to the resolution of the issues.

Background

Grant and Joyce Laur were married in 1955 and had seven children, who are the applicant and respondents. Grant Laur predeceased Joyce Laur on October 24, 2019. Joyce died on July 1, 2022.

On May 23, 1980, Grant and Joyce Laur purchased a farm at 10544 Carter Road in Aylmer, Ontario, which had been in the Laur family since 1848. The issues in the Application arise from an option granted to Robert Laur to purchase the farm upon the death of the last of Grant and Joyce.

The applicant asserts that in February 2019, he was granted an option to purchase the farm property on specific terms, referenced in the mirror Wills of his parents. He asserts that upon Joyce’s death, the option was and is available to him, and he took all required steps to execute the option. The applicant also asserts that prior to Joyce’s death, she prepared a holograph will impacting the administration of the sale proceeds, which would benefit Robert significantly.

The respondents, the other children of Grant and Joyce, oppose the exercise of the Option Agreement on the basis that Grant did not have the required capacity and was subjected to undue influence. They also argue the handwritten documents are not entirely in Joyce’s handwriting, are the product of undue influence, and/or do not reflect Joyce’s fixed and final testamentary intentions.

Factual and Procedural History

The History of the Farm

The farm property was originally acquired by the Laur family in 1848. Grant and Joyce acquired the farm from Grant’s father in 1980 and moved onto the property with four of their children. Robert is the youngest and was nine years old at the time. The other respondents did not live on the farm for any period of time.

Robert remained on the farm, working with Grant and Joyce and also off the property. He eventually brought a trailer onto the property, residing there until 2021. The farm has been an operating farm, producing crops and, for a time, holding a milk quota. Since approximately 2017, the farm has been used for a regulated and legal marijuana grow operation by the applicant.

The Testamentary History of Grant and Joyce

Grant and Joyce made a series of wills and powers of attorney over the years, always consulting counsel. The 2019 Option Agreement and mirror Wills were prepared by Mr. Prendergast, a “careful and prudent solicitor.”

On December 31, 2018, Mr. Prendergast prepared the Option to Purchase Agreement, allowing Robert to purchase the farm for $900,000.00. The Option Agreement was signed by Grant and Joyce on February 8, 2019, and by Robert on February 13, 2019. The mirror Wills, signed at the same time, referenced the option and provided for the division of the residue of the estate depending on whether Robert exercised the option.

After Grant’s death, the farm passed to Joyce. Joyce died on July 1, 2022. On December 15, 2022, Robert delivered a Notice of Exercise of Option to Purchase and deposit, but the executors refused to acknowledge the exercise, giving rise to this litigation.

Following Joyce’s death, two handwritten documents purporting to be in her handwriting were produced. The applicant advances one as a holograph Will and the other as relevant to inform testamentary intentions.

Main Issues

The trial focused on two main areas:

1. Whether the Option Agreement to purchase the farm property is valid, considering Grant’s capacity and possible undue influence.
2. The status and effect of the handwritten documents (Q1 and Q2), with the applicant advancing Q2 as a holograph Will and Q1 as relevant to testamentary intentions.

Other related issues were addressed as they arose.

Summary of the Position of the Parties

Applicant

The applicant relies on the Option Agreement, the 2019 Will, and the Q1 and Q2 documents to dictate the administration of Joyce’s estate. He acknowledges Grant’s diagnosis of mixed dementia but argues that the diagnosis alone is not determinative of capacity. The applicant contends the Option Agreement was not new or complicated for Grant, reflecting a longstanding intention. He asserts there is no evidence of undue influence and that, even if the Option Agreement is invalid, Robert would still have an option under the 2019 Wills. The applicant’s handwriting expert testified that both Q1 and Q2 are entirely in Joyce’s handwriting and that Q2 is a holograph Will.

Respondents

The respondents challenge Grant’s capacity to sign the Option Agreement, relying on his diagnosis of dementia and expert evidence. They argue the Option Agreement was new and complex, beyond Grant’s cognitive capacity, and was a product of undue influence. The respondents do not challenge the Wills but argue that if the Option Agreement is invalid, references to it in the Wills are of no effect. They also argue the handwritten documents are not entirely in Joyce’s handwriting, lack testamentary intent, and are the result of undue influence.

Legal Principles

Hearsay

The Court considered the admissibility of out-of-court statements, including as evidence of the declarant’s state of mind and present intentions, particularly regarding the Q1 document. The Court referenced R. v. Griffin, 2009 SCC 28, paras. 55-56.

Wills Construction and the Armchair Rule

The Court applied the “armchair” rule, seeking to determine the testator’s actual or subjective intentions by considering the circumstances at the time the will was made (Burke (Re), para. 30; Ross v. Canada Trust Company, 2021 ONCA 161, paras. 38-40).

Capacity

The law presumes capacity unless the contrary is proven. The required degree of understanding is relative to the transaction. For a will or a contract with testamentary effect, the degree required is high (Palichuk v. Palichuk, 2021 ONSC 7393, paras. 131-132, 157). The test for testamentary capacity is set out in [Banks v. Goodfellow (1870), L.R. 5 Q.B. 549 (C.A.)] and Hall v. Bennett Estate, paras. 14-15, 16-20.

Undue Influence

The legal test for undue influence is whether the conduct in question reached the level of “outright and overpowering coercion” (Banton v. Banton, paras. 58-59; Kates Estate, 2020 ONSC 7046, para. 89). The Court considered “badges of influence” as discussed in Tate v. Gueguegirre, 2015 ONSC 844, para. 9.

Analysis

Validity of the Option Agreement

The Court found that the Option Agreement was not a new or complex decision for Grant Laur, but rather reflected a longstanding intention, as evidenced by prior codicils and notes. The expert evidence was considered, and the Court preferred the opinion that Grant’s cognitive impairment did not preclude him from understanding and executing the Option Agreement, given its consistency with his prior intentions.

The Court found no evidence of undue influence rising to the level of coercion. The Option Agreement was executed transparently, with the involvement of Grant and Joyce’s solicitor, and was not kept secret from the family.

The Handwritten Documents (Q1 and Q2)

The Court found that neither Q1 nor Q2 reflected Joyce’s fixed and final testamentary intention. Q2, in particular, was used as an aide in a meeting with counsel and was not a holograph Will. The Court found that Joyce ultimately decided not to pursue changes to her Will, and there was no evidence she took further steps to do so before her death.

Disposition

• The 2019 Option Agreement is valid and enforceable.
• The Q2 document is not a holograph Will and has no testamentary import.
• The Q1 document has no testamentary import.
• The applicant’s alternative requests for a trust or damages were not addressed, as unnecessary.

Order

1. The Court declares that the Option Agreement signed by Grant Jackson Laur and Joyce Eileen Laur on February 8, 2019, and by Robert Jackson Laur on February 13, 2019, is valid and enforceable.
2. The Court orders the transfer of the farm property located at Lot 31 & 32, Con 8, Township of Malahide, all of PIN 35285-0119 (LT), County of Elgin, at 10544 Carter Road, Aylmer, Ontario, in accordance with the Option Agreement, and orders the administration of the Estate of Joyce Eileen Laur in accordance with the Primary and Secondary Will of Joyce Eileen Laur signed on February 8, 2019.

Costs

The parties are encouraged to agree on costs. If unable to agree, written submissions may be made as set out in the reasons.

Release date: February 28, 2025
Justice Joseph Perfetto

Endnotes

[1] Exhibit 1 in these proceedings is the composite exhibit that contains the volumes of materials filed. In this decision the relevant documents are referred to by describing what they are.
[2] Jacqueline Mueller is one of the children of Grant and Joyce Laur. She has submitted her rights in this matter to the Court.
[3] The Agreed Statement of Fact and the written submissions of counsel indicate that Grant Laur died on October 19, 2019. However, in other documents, including the Funeral Director’s Certificate of Death, and on the bottom of Document Q1, the date of death is shown as October 24, 2019.
[4] At the time of the Application, Rosemary Eileen Ball was deceased. An Order to Continue the Application against her Estate as represented by her executor, was issued on February 28, 2024.
[5] This trailer and addition has the municipal address of 10508 Carter Road.
[6] Joint Document Brief Volume I at Tab 3.
[7] Joint Document Brief Volume I Tab 4-7.
[8] R. v. Griffin, 2009 SCC 28 at paras. 55-56.
[9] Ross v. Canada Trust Company, 2021 ONCA 161 at paras. 38-40.
[10] Hall v. Bennett Estate at paras. 16-20.
[11] Joint Document Brief Volume IX at Tab 48.
[12] Joint Document Brief Volume IX at Tab 52.
[13] Joint Document Brief Volume IX at Tab 51.
[14] Reference to probable Alzheimer disease is utilized because the necessary biopsy required to confirm Alzheimer disease was not performed in Grant’s case.
[15] Joint Document Brief Volume II at Tab 25.
[16] Joint Document Brief Volume III at Tab 29.
[17] Joint Document Brief Volume III at Tab 29, A-XVIII.
[18] Joint Document Brief Volume III at Tab 29 A-II.
[19] Joint Document Brief Volume V at Tab 32-33.
[20] Joint Document Brief Volume III at Tab 29 A-X.
[21] Joint Document Brief Volume II at Tab 25.
[22] Joint Document Brief Volume III at Tab 29, A-XII.
[23] Joint Document Brief Volume III at Tab 29 A-XIII.
[24] Joint Document Brief Volume III at Tab 29.
[25] Joint Document Brief Volume III at Tab 29 A-II.
[26] Joint Document Brief Volume II at Tab 27.
[27] Mr. Prendergast’s notes indicate “circs suspicious”.
[28] Joint Document Brief Volume I at Tab 8.
[29] Joint Document Brief Volume I at Tab 9.
[30] Joint Document Brief Volume II at Tab 28-A.
[31] Joint Document Brief Volume I at Tab 22 and Volume II at Tab 26.