Shane Pearce

Three siblings challenged the validity of their father’s will on the basis of alleged undue influence by their youngest brother.

The court first determined that the will had been duly executed in compliance with the Succession Law Reform Act and that the testator had knowledge and approval of its contents.

The applicants argued that the youngest brother manipulated the parents and poisoned their relationship with the other children, leading to their disinheritance.

The court held that the burden of proving undue influence rested on the challengers and found that the evidence did not establish coercion or fraud sufficient to invalidate the will.

Instead, the court concluded that longstanding estrangement between the parents and the applicants explained the testamentary disposition.

In a will validity application under the Succession Law Reform Act, the respondents moved for a non-suit alleging that the propounders had failed to prove formal execution because one attesting witness did not actually see the testator sign the will.

The court considered whether the statutory requirement that the testator sign or acknowledge the signature in the presence of two witnesses was satisfied.

Applying the civil standard of proof and principles governing suspicious circumstances, the court held that the evidence supported a finding that the signature was made in the presence of both witnesses or, alternatively, acknowledged in the presence of the second witness when he was asked to sign as a witness.

The court rejected the argument that strict non-compliance invalidated the will and concluded that the statutory requirements had been met on the evidence.

The Crown prosecuted the defendant for operating a motor vehicle while prohibited under section 259 of the Criminal Code.

The defendant was prohibited from driving "on any street, road, highway or other public place" following a previous drinking and driving conviction.

The defendant argued that Airport Road in Pikangikum First Nation, an Indian Reserve, was not a public road and therefore the prohibition did not apply.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the prohibition applies to roads within the reserve where members of the public are exposed to risk from impaired drivers.

The defendant was found guilty as charged.