LawFact of the Day: Wills and Estates

Here is your daily LawFact from Wise Law for Thursday June 29, 2017.

Today we are talking about Wills and Estates.

A Last Will must provide adequately for dependents who relied on the testator for financial support. Eligible dependents include a child, parent, spouse or domestic partner.

If such dependents aren't adequately provided for by a Will, they can ask a Court to order the Estate to pay support to them.
For more information on #EmploymentLaw, #FamilyLaw, #Wills, #Estates, and #EstatesLitigation, visit our website at http://www.wiselaw.net.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

LawFact of the Day: Wills and Estates

Here is your daily LawFact from Wise Law Toronto for Thursday June 22, 2017.

Today we are talking about Wills and Estates.

When a person dies in Ontario, and no next of kin claims an inheritance from the Estate, the government attempts to locate a surviving relative

The Ontario Public Guardian and Trustee may take steps like retaining professional genealogists or private investigators to locate living relatives.
For more information on Employment Law, Family Law, Wills, Estates, and Estates Litigation, visit our website at http://www.wiselaw.net.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

LawFact of the Day: Wills and Estates

Here is your daily LawFact from Wise Law Toronto for Thursday June 15, 2017. Today we are talking about Wills and Estates.

When a person is married in Ontario, the marriage automatically revokes a prior Last Will made by that person.

The sole exception to this rule is a Last Will that is specifically made in anticipation of an upcoming marriage to a specific person.
For more information on #EmploymentLaw, #FamilyLaw, #Wills, #Estates, and #EstatesLitigation, visit our website at http://www.wiselaw.net.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

LawFact of the Day: Wills and Estates

Here is your daily LawFact from Wise Law Toronto for Thursday June 1, 2017.

Today we are talking about Wills and Estates.

For an Ontario will to be valid, it must be signed by the person making the will and be witnessed by two people who are not beneficiaries under the will.

A holograph will is an exception to these formal requirements. Holograph wills must be made entirely in the handwriting of the testator. No witnesses are required for a holograph will.
For more information on Employment Law, Family Law, Wills, Estates, and Estates Litigation, visit our website at www.wiselaw.net.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

LawFact of the Day: Wills and Estates

Here is your daily LawFact from Wise Law for Thursday April 27, 2017.

Today we are talking about Wills and Estates.

A last will can leave instructions for who will have custody of the deceased's children.

These custody appointments are valid for 90 days. After that, the court must make a permanent appointment.

For more information on Employment Law, Family Law, Wills, Estates and Estates Litigation, visit our website at www.wiselaw.net.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

LawFact of the Day: Wills and Estates

Here is your daily LawFact from Wise Law Toronto for Thursday March 23, 2017.

Today we are talking about Wills and Estates.

Ontario strictly requires that a Will be signed by the person making the will and be witnessed by two people who are not beneficiaries.

If these formal requirements are not met, a Will may be invalidated.

For more information on Employment Law, Family Law, Wills, Estates, and Estates Litigation, visit our website at www.wiselaw.net
 

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

LawFact of the Day: Wills and Estates

Here is your daily LawFact from Wise Law for Thursday March 16, 2017.

Today we are talking about Wills and Estates.

A Last Will must provide adequately for dependents who relied on the testator for financial support. Eligible dependents include a child, parent, spouse or domestic partner.

If such dependents aren't adequately provided for by a Will, they can ask a Court to order the Estate to pay support to them.

For more information on Employment Law, Family Law, Wills, Estates, and Estates Litigation, visit our website at www.wiselaw.net.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

LawFact of the Day: Wills and Estates

Here is your daily LawFact from Wise Law for Thursday March 9, 2017. Today we are talking about Wills and Estates.

For more information on Employment Law, Family Law, Wills, Estates, and Estates Litigation, visit our website at www.wiselaw.net

When a person dies in Ontario, and no next of kin claims an inheritance from the Estate, the government attempts to locate a surviving relative

The Ontario Public Guardian and Trustee may take steps like retaining professional genealogists or private investigators to locate living relatives.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

LawFact of the Day: Wills and Estates

Here is your daily LawFact from Wise Law for Thursday March 2, 2017. Today we are talking about Wills and Estates.

For more information on Employment Law, Family Law, Wills, Estates, and Estates Litigation, visit our website at www.wiselaw.net.

A post shared by Wise Law Office (@wiselaw) on Mar 2, 2017 at 7:43am PST

When a person is married in Ontario, the marriage automatically revokes a prior Last Will made by that person.

The sole exception to this rule is a Last Will that is specifically made in anticipation of an upcoming marriage to a specific person.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

LawFact of the Day: Wills and Estates

Here is your daily LawFact from Wise Law for Thursday February 16, 2017. Today we are talking about Wills and Estates.

For more information on Employment Law, Family Law, and Wills, Estates, and Estates Litigation, visit our website at www.wiselaw.net

A post shared by Wise Law Office (@wiselaw) on Feb 16, 2017 at 6:31am PST

For an Ontario will to be valid, it must be signed by the person making the will and be witnessed by two people who are not beneficiaries under the will.

A holograph will is an exception to these formal requirements. Holograph wills must be made entirely in the handwriting of the testator. No witnesses are required for a holograph will.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

LawFact of the Day: Wills and Estates

Here is your daily LawFact from Wise Law for Thursday January 26, 2017. Today we are talking about Wills and Estates.

A video posted by Wise Law Office (@wiselaw) on Jan 26, 2017 at 6:35am PST

A last will cannot have provisions that run contrary to public policy.

For instance, a will cannot discriminate against a family member because of religion, marital status, or sexual orientation and it cannot encourage people to do illegal acts.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

Can Your Last Will and Testament Prevent Your Ex From Getting Child Custody After Your Death?

BY PAUL ADAM, ASSOCIATE LAWYER

After a marital separation, some parents will, for better or worse, go to unimaginable lengths to prevent their ex-partners from having
custody or access to the children of the marriage.

Can this fight continue after death?

Can a separated parent use a last will to prevent the child's other parent from obtaining custody after death of a custodial parent?

In Ontario, a sole custodial parent can name anyone as the temporary custodian of a child in a Last Will and Testament, under section 61 of the Children's Law Reform Act. The appointment is temporary for 90 days, after that, the parent with temporary custody must apply for court ordered permanent custody. The appointment is also only effective when the testator is the only person who had custody of the child at the time when he or she died, or if both people with custody died at the same time.

Of course, under Ontario law, any other person who wishes custody of the child, irrespective of the directions in a will, can make his or her own Application for custody of the child.

In my practice, I have been the asked at least twice "What should I do if I do not, in any circumstances, want my ex to get custody of our child?"

The Newfoundland and Labrador case of NW v KB (Unified Family Court, 1995) offers some interesting guidance.

MB was separated from KB. They had a daughter. MB was dying. An Ontario judge had granted her custody of the daughter and liberal access to KB. MB and daughter were permitted to move back to Labrador where their family lived, for the final stages of the cancer treatment. MB drew up plans for the care of her daughter in a Last Will.

MB wanted her daughter to live permanently with her sister NW in St. John's. Her Last Will aired out a litany of complaints about KB, and directed custody to the aunt, NW.:

"The most important things I want for (Sylvia) are caring, loving, affection, stability and strong family values. I know that her father K.B. cannot provide her with this. [...] Although K.B. is (Sylvia's) biological parent, he cannot provide her with the family values, stability, affection and loving that my sister N.W. and her family can. K.B. does not express feelings of love and affection. He has been married on three occasions and is only thirty-three years old. All marriages ended in divorce for no valid reasons. I do not believe that K.B. can provide (Sylvia) with a stable environment that I want for her. K.B. and his family have no sense of family values. His brothers and sisters have children from other marriages and/or relationships. Many do not pay child support and many have been divorced. [The laundry list of complaints goes on. You can read the entire provision here at paragraph 16.] These are not the family values that I wish for my daughter (Sylvia)"

NW brought an application to be given full custody of her niece, pursuant to the Last Will. Unlike in Ontario, under Newfoundland's Children's Law Act, a provision granting custody to a non-parent after death was null and void as long as there was a living parent with a right to custody or access (as was the case with KB).

It will come as no surprise that the Justice Halley determined that the paramount consideration in determining who would have custody of child was the child's best interests. The Court was not prepared to sever the Dad's relationship with his daughter, but it took the claim for custody in the Aunt's application seriously enough to investigate what was really in the best interests of the infant daughter of KB and the late MB.

The Court found KB and NW to be two equally devoted and capable parents, either of whom, could and would have been suitable to have full custody.

The Court granted custody to the father but in apparent recognition of the merit of the Application, gave the Aunt very generous access to be exercised for 60 days or more during the year at her own expense around holiday and vacation times.

NB v KW sets out a fairly common fact scenario, and illustrates a few important general principles to keep in mind when trying to make a testamentary appointment of a guardian for a child:

1. The Child's best interests are still the Court's primary concern

2. The Court will be very reluctant to strip custody from a parent or person, who otherwise be entitled, unless it's truly in the Child's best interests.

3. The person you name in your Will as guardian of your child may influence the Court's decision on who is granted custody or access, but it will not necessarily be followed or be binding on the court.

4. If you use your Last Will as a platform to attack a spouse or other family member's parenting ability, don't assume that the Court will accept your comments uncritically.

Most importantly, think about what you want to be remembered for.

Is it that you used your Last Will to sow conflict, rather than reconciliation, after you were gone?

- Paul B. Adam, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

Last Wills that Offend Public Decency

BY GARRY J. WISE AND PAUL B. ADAM

Competing February 2016 rulings by Ontario courts have left us with real questions as to when a discriminatory Last Will and Testament will be upheld in this province.

Background

These cases are the latest in a very interesting history of court cases dealing with Last Wills that have tried to create racially discriminatory gifts, meddle in the marital affairs of others, support unsavoury political causes, and troll public institutions.

For over a century, Canadian and British courts have responded by striking out portions of last wills that violate an established code of law like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or a well established legal principle. 

A relatively small number of cases have emerged in that time, and that's probably just as well. Wills that are struck down in this manner usually involve testators with ugly views about humanity, their own family, or both.

There have been a number of rulings over the years concentrated in two areas in particular: 

1. Wills containing gifts and bequests that violate the freedom of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
2. Wills that try to meddle with a person's freedom to marry whom they desire.

Over time, the courts have taken a progressively broader view of the sorts of scenarios in which they will strike down part of a Will that violates these two Charter values.

Today, the right to marry whom one chooses is recognized as a protected Charter right that Last Wills cannot try to restrain. 

But even before the Charter era, it was considered a civil offence to interfere with the married relations of another person (for instance, by offering a financial incentive to leave a spouse- see Re McBride, 1980, Ontario Superior Court) and the courts were prepared to strike out last wills that meddled in such a manner.

The Priebe Estate

In February 2016, Justice A.K. Mitchel of the Ontario Superior Court made a ruling in the Estate of Victor Hugh Priebe (Royal Trust v University of Western Ontario et al). 

Victor Priebe's Last Will is a pretty typical example of a violation of the first charter principle above. Priebe, a physician, provided for the creation of a scholarship for students at Western, but available only to young men who were:

"Caucasian (white) male, single, heterosexual students in scientific studies" with special consideration for students who took on "hard manual work in their selection of summer employment";  

Or, a young woman who was

 "hard-working, single, Caucasian white girl [...] not a feminist or lesbian". 

Justice A.K. Mitchell of the Superior Court of Ontario, ruled that these portions of the Will were invalid, and wrote that she had "no hesitation" in declaring the discriminatory and politically charged qualifications void, as being contrary to public policy. 

The court's intervention in this case is perhaps easy to understand, because the Last Will was ordering the Trustees of the Priebe Estate to create a scholarship fund for the broader Canadian public that was set up on unabashedly prejudicial terms - to deliberately violate the Charter. Instead, the estate was directed to make the charitable donation to the university, but without any of unseemly restrictions on the scholarships.

The Priebe ruling is consistent with previous rulings in which the Court has intervened when a Will appeared to violate the Charter:

In Ontario Human Rights Commission v Canada Trust Co. (1990, Ontario Court of Appeal) Ontario the Court struck out provisions from a Trust created by Estate of Reuben Leonard, that since 1923 or thereabouts had provided scholarships to nobody but White, Protestant, loyal subjects of the British Empire. The Court acknowledged that the public interest had evolved over the last 65 years, and however the scholarships had been administered in the past, they clearly offended the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the year 1990. The Court ordered that the Trustees continue to award the "Leonard Scholarships", but without any regard to race, religion or national identity.

This evolution though, was still a process. The Leonard decision, for instance, noted that the court could not interfere with gifts and bequests to private individuals that were discriminatory, so long as they weren't set up as charitable trusts.

This distinction appeared to have dissolved over time. The decision in Murley Estate (1995 Nfld Supreme Court), for example, struck out a provision in a Will that left a bequest to a beneficiary on the condition that he remain a member of the Catholic, Anglican or United Church.

A February 2016 ruling of Ontario's Court of Appeal appears to have changed this, at least with respect to private testamentary gifts that do not involve testamentary public trusts for scholarship, community or similar purposes. 

The Spence Estate

Having seen examples of when Courts have struck out a portion of a Last Will on discriminatory grounds, it's equally informative to note when they have not.

A dramatic example of an apparently discriminatory Will being upheld is found in the Ontario Court of Appeal's surprising February 2016 ruling in Spence v BMO Trust.

The Last Will of Rector Emanuel Spence contained this provision:

I specifically bequeath nothing to my daughter, Verolin Spence, as she has had no communication with me for several years and has shown no interest in me as a father.

Verolin Spence brought a Court application urging the Court to look deeper into the Spence family affairs. A lifelong friend of Rector Spence testified that his true reason for excluding Verolin from his Estate was that the father of her son was white. Rector had raged that he had no further use for Verolin and her “bastard white son” and that he intended to exclude her from his will because of her personal choice. 

To the extent the Will excluded Verolin, it was invalidated at the Application's hearing. On appeal, however, the Application Judge's ruling was overturned and the will was upheld.

The issues before the Court of Appeal were framed as follows:

[1]         Is it open to the courts to scrutinize an unambiguous and unequivocal residual bequest in a will, with no discriminatory conditions or stipulations, if a disappointed beneficiary or other third party claims that the bequest offends public policy?  Is third-party extrinsic evidence of the testator’s alleged discriminatory motive for making the bequest admissible on an application to set aside the will on public policy grounds?

The Court of Appeal upheld the will, ruling it a private matter for which no extrinsic evidence was admissible regarding the testator's motives or reasons for disinheriting his daughter, and upholding the overriding principle of testamentary freedom:

73]      This question lies at the very heart of Eric’s exercise of his testamentary freedom.  It must be remembered that the bequest at issue is of a private, rather than a public or quasi-public, nature.  Recall Tarnopolsky J.A.’s caution in Canada Trust, at p. 515, that it was the “public nature of charitable trusts which attracts the requirement that they conform to the public policy against discrimination”.  Here, assuming that Eric’s testamentary bequest had been facially repugnant in the sense that it disinherited Verolin for expressly stated discriminatory reasons, the bequest would nonetheless be valid as reflecting a testator’s intentional, private disposition of his property – the core aspect of testamentary freedom.

[74]      In these hypothetical circumstances, neither Ontario’s Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 nor the Charter of Rightsand Freedoms would apply to justify court interference with the testator’s intentions.  The Human Rights Code, of course, ensures that every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities without discrimination based on race and other enumerated grounds.  The Charter pertains to state action.  Neither reaches testamentary dispositions of a private nature.

[75]      Absent valid legislative provision to the contrary, the common law principle of testamentary freedom thus protects a testator’s right to unconditionally dispose of her property and to choose her beneficiaries as she wishes, even on discriminatory grounds.  To conclude otherwise would undermine the vitality of testamentary freedom and run contrary to established judicial restraint in setting aside private testamentary gifts on public policy grounds...

[97]      It need hardly be said that public policy in Canada precludes discrimination on the basis of race and other discriminatory characteristics.  The public policy against discrimination is reflected in the Charter and the human rights legislation of every province in Canada, including Ontario’s Human Rights Code.  

[98]      But the desirability of affirming the public policy against discrimination does not lead to the conclusion that third-party extrinsic evidence of a testator’s alleged discriminatory motive is admissible to challenge the validity of a will where, as here, the testator’s residual bequest to a private beneficiary is absolute, unequivocal and unambiguous.  Quite the opposite.  If, as Rondelholds, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to establish what a testator intended, still less should it be admissible to question whythe testator made a particular bequest...

[111]   As I have indicated in these reasons, the scope for judicial interference with a testator’s private testamentary dispositions is limited.  So, too, is the reach of the public policy doctrine in estates cases.  And for good reason.  The court’s power to interfere with a testator’s testamentary freedom on public policy grounds does not justify intervention simply because the court may regard the testator’s testamentary choices as distasteful, offensive, vengeful or small-minded.  As the court observed in Thorsnes v. Ortigoza, 2003 MBQB 127 (CanLII), 174 Man. R. (2d) 274, at para. 14, “a person has the right, subject to fulfilling specific legal obligations to dependants, to dispose of his or her estate in an absurd or capricious manner, whatever others may think of the fairness or reasonableness of the dispositions”. 

One of the most (in)famous estates cases in Canadian history is Millar Estate (1937, Supreme Court of Canada). Charles Millar was a wealthy lawyer who died with no family or heirs. He wrote a Last Will full of intentionally bizarre and obnoxious bequests designed to irk the recipients, or the public at large. 

Most notoriously, Millar set aside a generous gift to be given to the mother or mothers who gave birth to the most children in a ten year period after his death. The disposition of his Estate was challenged all the way to the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice ruled that the intention behind this bequest might be unseemly, but it didn't violate any specific law or established line of legal reasoning, and therefore Courts were not free to strike it out.

Until the recent Spence appeal ruling, it might have been difficult to succeed in an argument that a dispute with a child, reflected in a disinheritance over the gender, race or religion of a child's partner or children would be addressed by Ontario's courts as simply a private matter between family. 

Spence, however, has apparently elevated the principle of testamentary freedom beyond any objections over discrimination, so long as a testamentary bequest is solely private in character and no public or community trust is implicated.  

It is now increasingly unlikely that Ontario's court will be willing to look more deeply into family disputes and strike out or amend a Last Wills that purported to exclude a beneficiaries on grounds that the public at large would consider discriminatory, based on the Canada's Charter values.

This anomaly can only be resolved by legislative change.

- Garry J. Wise and Paul B. Adam, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Wills and Estates Home Page

LawFact of the Day: Wills and Estates

Here is your daily LawFact form Wise Law for Thursday December 1, 2016. Today we are talking about Wills and Estates.

A video posted by Wise Law Office (@wiselaw) on Dec 1, 2016 at 6:45am PST

Where a person dies without a will, an intestacy arises. Ontario’s Succession Law Reform Act establishes rules for the distribution of an intestate deceased person’s property. An intestate person’s spouse inherits the first $200,000 of an Estate.

Estate property over $200,000 is divided between the deceased’s spouse and children, in proportions that depend on the number of surviving children. Where there are no surviving spouse or children, parents inherit. If there are no surviving parents, siblings will inherit.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

Getting It Right: Formal Requirements for Your Last Will and Testament

BY PAUL B. ADAM, ASSOCIATE LAWYER

Remember the old expression, "close enough" only works with horseshoes and hand grenades?

Keep this in mind when drafting your Last Will and Testament. The law is very clear about the formal requirements that must be met for a Will to be validated.  So, along with ensuring that your Will clearly articulates how you want your Estate's assets to be divided, make sure it also meets the law's formal requirements, so that you can feel safe that your Will is actually valid.

Ontario's Formal Will Requirements

Just what goes in to making a Last Will legally valid?

Let's focus on three basic formal requirements about the document itself:

1. The Last Will and Testament must be signed by the person making the last will
2. It must be witnessed by two people
3. The two witnesses can't also be beneficiaries under the last will

These requirements may sound simple enough, but a failure to strictly meet any of them can create serious challenges.

Why is it so important that your Last Will and Testament meets each and every legal requirement for validity? 

Ontario courts have very little power to validate or rectify a Will that does not meet all of the law's formal requirements for validation. This is true, even when the Will genuinely represents the wishes of the person who signed it.

Several provinces in Canada do grant Will rectification powers to their Courts. Nova Scotia's Wills Act, as an an example, provides that a Court may order that a Will is valid and fully effective, even where the formal requirements imposed haven't been met.  This rectification is possible only if the Court is otherwise satisfied that the Will fully embodies the actual intentions of the testator.

Ontario courts do not have this additional discretion.

What happens when an Ontario Will does not comply with these formal requirements?

If presented with a Last Will that is unsigned, an Ontario Court will likely refuse to admit it as a last Will. (There may be an exception if someone signed a Last Will, the beneficiaries lost it, and then tried to present an unsigned version of the validly executed Last Will, along with proof that there was once a signed copy, see Sorkos v Cowderoy, Ontario Court of Appeal, 2006).

Having a Last Will that's been witnessed by only one person might seem like a less serious defect than a Will that hasn't been witnessed by anyone. But nevertheless, the Ontario Court in Sills v Daley (Ontario Superior Court, 2002) declined to validate a Last Will that had only one witness, and thus "almost" met the formal requirements.

Again, "close but no cigar."

If one, or both of the witnesses to a Last Will is a beneficiary, this may not be a fatal flaw. The Court may still accept the Will as valid, but your executors (and possibly your beneficiaries) will likely have some work to do. A beneficiary who also witnessed the Last Will will need to provide clear evidence that he or she didn't pressure or exert undue influence on the Testator to sign the document. It is by no means a given that the Court will accept the beneficiary's testimony

Get it Right, Or Else...

If a Court refuses to validate a Last Will, the result can be that your Estate gets divided and distributed as if you had no Will at all.  A different set of legal intestacy rules will then be followed that will distribute your assets in a way that might not reflect your actual wishes.

That can mean upset beneficiaries, litigation, more legal fees or taxes for your Estate to pay, and the hard work you've done on your estate planning going down the drain.

So when it comes to these basic formal requirements, ensure your Will gets it right.

- Paul B. Adam, Toronto

Visit our Wills and Estates Home Page for more information

LawFact of the Day: Wills and Estates

Here is your daily LawFact from Wise Law for Thursday November 24, 2016. Today we are talking about Wills and Estates.

A video posted by Wise Law Office (@wiselaw) on Nov 24, 2016 at 6:54am PST

For an Ontario will to be valid, it must be signed by the person making the will and be witnessed by two people who are not beneficiaries under the will.

A holograph will is an exception to these formal requirements. Holograph wills must be made entirely in the handwriting of the testator. No witnesses are required for a holograph will.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

LawFact of the Day: Wills and Estates

Here is your daily LawFact from Wise Law for Thursday November 17, 2016. Today we are talking about Wills and Estates.

A video posted by Wise Law Office (@wiselaw) on Nov 17, 2016 at 6:59am PST

A last will cannot have provisions that run contrary to public policy.

For instance, a will cannot discriminate against a family member because of religion, marital status, or sexual orientation and it cannot encourage people to do illegal acts.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

LawFact of the Day: Wills and Estates

Here is your daily LawFact from Wise Law for Friday Octiber 7, 2016. Today we are talking about Wills and Estates.

A video posted by Wise Law Office (@wiselaw) on Oct 7, 2016 at 6:32am PDT

For an Ontario will to be valid, it must be signed by the person making the will and be witnessed by two people who are not beneficiaries under the will.

A holograph will is an exception to these formal requirements. Holograph wills must be made entirely in the handwriting of the testator. No witnesses are required for a holograph will.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

LawFact of the Day: Wills and Estates

Here is your daily LawFact from Wise Law for Thursday September 22, 2016. Today we are talking about Wills and Estates.

A video posted by Wise Law Office (@wiselaw) on Sep 22, 2016 at 6:25am PDT

A last will can leave instructions for who will have custody of the deceased's children.

These custody appointments are valid for 90 days. After that, the court must make a permanent appointment.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net

LawFact of the Day: Wills and Estates

Here is your daily LawFact from Wise Law for Thursday September 1, 2016. Today we are talking about Wills and Estates.

A video posted by Wise Law Office (@wiselaw) on Sep 1, 2016 at 6:51am PDT

For an Ontario will to be valid, it must be signed by the person making the will and be witnessed by two people who are not beneficiaries under the will.

A holograph will is an exception to these formal requirements. Holograph wills must be made entirely in the handwriting of the testator. No witnesses are required for a holograph will.

- Garry J. Wise, Toronto

Visit our Toronto Law Office website: www.wiselaw.net