SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1919 Supreme(SC) 64

Privy Council
Lord Dunedin, Lord Buckmaster , Justice Viscount Haldane, JJ.
Craig -Appellant
Versus
Lamoureux -Resopndent
On appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada
Decided On : 21-10-1919

Advocates Appeared:
Lawrence Jones and Co., Redden, Blake , J.A. Harteau, Sumeyev , Cinq-Mars, G. Lawrence A

In testamentary cases, the burden of proving undue influence rests on the party alleging it, provided the will was executed by a competent person. Unlike gifts inter vivos, the beneficiary's role in preparing the will does not shift this burden of proof to the beneficiary.

Headnote:(A) Wills and Succession - Undue Influence - Burden of Proof - Difference between testamentary dispositions and gifts inter vivos - When a will is executed with due solemnities by a person of competent understanding and apparently a free agent, the burden of proving that it was executed under undue influence rests on the party who alleges this. (Paras 14-15)

(B) Undue Influence - Standard of Proof - To set aside the will of a person of sound mind, it is not sufficient to show that the circumstances attending its execution are inconsistent with the hypothesis of its having been obtained by undue influence; it must be shown that they are inconsistent with a contrary hypothesis. Undue influence must be such that it causes the execution of a document pretending to express a testator's mind which really does not express his mind. (Paras 16-17)

(C) Beneficiary's Role - A person who is instrumental in framing a will under which they obtain a benefit is not automatically placed in a position where they must prove the righteousness of the transaction, unlike in cases of gifts inter vivos which strip a donor of property during their lifetime. (Paras 13-14)

Facts of the case:
A testatrix, married under a contract of separation of property, executed a will leaving her estate to her husband. The husband, with the assistance of a lawyer, had been instrumental in preparing the will. A second version of the will was initially signed but discarded after it was represented to be inoperative due to an illegible signature. The testatrix subsequently signed the first version of the will with a mark. The sister of the testatrix challenged the will on the grounds of undue influence and misrepresentation, contending that because the husband prepared the will, the burden of proof lay on him to show the absence of undue influence.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the testatrix was of sound mind and capable of understanding the nature of the document she signed. The fact that the husband assisted in the preparation of the will did not shift the burden of proof to him, as the testatrix adopted the will as it stood with full consciousness of her actions.

Issues: Whether the burden of proof to show the absence of undue influence shifts to a beneficiary who was instrumental in the preparation of the will.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the principle applicable to gifts inter vivos does not apply to wills. For a validly executed will by a competent testator, the burden of proving undue influence remains with the party alleging it. It is insufficient to establish that a person had the power to overbear the will of the testator; it must be shown that the power was actually exercised to obtain the will.

Result: Appeal allowed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

  • succession law
    • wills
      • validity of wills
        • undue influence
        • testamentary capacity
        • formal execution

Viscount Haldane:-

This is an appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada which reversed the Chief Justice dissenting, a judgment of the Court of King's Bench for the Province of Quebec. That Court, in its turn, had reversed the judgment of the Superior Court for the Province delivered in an action which was brought to set aside a will. The claim was made against the appellant as defendant and was based on the contention that as the appellant who was the husband of the testatrix was the sole beneficiary under the will and had been instrumental in preparing it, the onus lay on him to show that he had not procured its execution by undue influence and misrepresentation, and this onus he had failed to discharge.

Their Lordships feel bound to express their regret at the course which the litigation has taken. The amount of the testatrix's estate is small and the costs of determining the issue raised must be out of all reasonable proportion to the sum at stake. But the judgments given have been successively reversed and there is no course open to this Board but to deal with the matter without regard to consequences.

The respondent, the plaintiff was an unmarried sister of the testatrix. The latter had been married to the appellant for twenty-four years and the husband and wife had lived together through that period in the house of the appellant's father near Montreal. They were married with a contract providing for separation of property under which the surviving spouse would not on intestacy take any interest in the property of the predeceasing spouse, a situation which they had according to the evidence only realized immediately before the death of the wife.

The events which have given rise to the controversy between the parties are shortly as follows : The testatrix was seized with a serious illness on Saturday 1st July, 1911. Doctors who were called in thought her condition one of danger. The trained nurse, who was in attendance finally suggested to the testatrix that she should see the parish priest, and he was summoned accordingly by the husband's father, Joseph Craig. The latter had heard the appellant and the testatrix talking with the idea that the survivor of them would succeed to the property of the other, and having doubts whether they realized that from the nature of their marriage contract this could not be without a will, he spoke first to his son, and then to the priest. The priest after administering the rites of his Church to the testatrix mentioned the point to her, but, according to his evidence without suggesting that she should leave her property to her husband. When the priest had left her, the testatrix told the nurse to ask her husband to come to her room as she had something to say to him. He came and the nurse left the room. According to the husband's testimony, his wife asked him how it was that their affairs were not in order as she had always been told by him and she requested him to get them arranged so that as they had always agreed when she was in health, the property should go to the survivor. The husband then went to his brother, who lived in the house and who was a lawyer. The latter wrote out a will in the following words :-

"Par measure de prudence, et sans me croire nullement dangereusement malade je prends a tout evenement les presentes dispositions : Je donne et legue, sans restrictions a mon epoux Isaie, Craig, tous mes biens tant immeubles que, meubles, saufles cadeaur Qu'il jugera a propos de faire a mes proches comme souvenirs."

The husband read this will to his wife, who asked him, according to his account, if he could do something for her own family, for her father had always asked her to think of these others if it was at all possible, as far as she would like to do so, and she said to him that she would like that he should do this if he could. The husband then went back to his brother and asked him to add a clause to the will. The brother re-drew it in the old terms, but with the following addit










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top