Making Alterations to a Will

There are different ways in which a testator can make changes to their last will and testament. For example, they can choose to make an entirely new will, they can execute a codicil which often changes certain paragraphs in the will, or they can make an “alteration” to their will.

Alterations are commonly made when a testator makes handwritten notes on the pages of the will itself, purporting to revise or change a paragraph in a will that has already been properly executed. Alterations can also come in the form of crossing out certain sentences in a will.

However, any alterations made to a will are required to conform with the requirements in the Succession Law Reform Act as follows:

18 (1) Subject to subsection (2), unless an alteration that is made in a will after the will has been made is made in accordance with the provisions of this Part governing making of the will, the alteration has no effect except to invalidate words or the effect of the will that it renders no longer apparent.

(2) An alteration that is made in a will after the will has been made is validly made when the signature of the testator and subscription of witnesses to the signature of the testator to the alteration, or, in the case of a will that was made under section 5 or 6, the signature of the testator, are or is made,

(a) in the margin or in some other part of the will opposite or near to the alteration; or

(b) at the end of or opposite to a memorandum referring to the alteration and written in some part of the will.

Any post-execution alterations to a will must be made in accordance with the formal requirements that govern the validity of the type of will that it is.[1] For the typical typed will, any alterations made must have the testator’s signature and two witness signatures. For a holograph will, which is one that is entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator (and does not require a witness signature), alterations made must be signed by the testator, but do not necessarily have to be witnessed.

In Dokis v. Burgaretta et al., 2025 ONSC 4287, the testator executed a holograph will, later crossed out the names of beneficiaries who had died before them after the will was executed, and made handwritten notes beside those sentences stating that the beneficiary had died. There were two revisions made:

1. beside the bequest to Leonard Simcoe, the testator wrote “Leonard died Dec. 1 2003 His heirs are excluded from my will except for his four children named below“; and
2. beside the bequest to D’Arcy (Steven) Beers, the testator crossed out his name and wrote: “Darcy died March 9, 2003 His heirs are excluded from my will“.

Dokis made an interesting distinction with respect to the signature requirement. In that case, the testator initialed but did not sign the alterations that she made to the will.

The crossing out of D’Arcy (Steven) Beers’ name was a valid alteration, but only to the extent that it invalidated the gift to D’Arcy (Steven) Beers. The Court followed the decision in Luty v. Magill, 2004 CanLII 48165 (ON SC), where the Court found that two deletions that were dated, initialed (but not signed), and which obliterated (rendered unreadable) the testator’s earlier handwriting formed a holograph codicil. A holograph codicil, properly made, can alter a formal will.[2] The bequests to the beneficiaries were therefore revoked for the purpose of probating the will.

However, the handwritten notes regarding the exclusion of D’Arcy (Steven) Beers’ heirs and Leonard Simcoe’s heirs were invalid alterations. The handwritten notes excluding the heirs were invalid because pursuant to s. 18(2), there would have had to be a signature in the margin or some other place near to the alteration. There were no signatures, only initials.

The recently released decision of Boyle v. Boyle, 2026 ONSC 4919 provides further analysis on alterations made to a will. There were various handwritten alterations made to the will crossing out certain beneficiaries in the residue clause and adding new beneficiaries. Interestingly, the testator then proceeded to make further alterations by crossing out the names of the new beneficiaries that were added from the original alterations. The end result was that the alterations deleted every paragraph in the residue clause, meaning that the residue of the estate would have been distributed as an intestacy.

In Boyle, similar to Dokis, the testator affixed his initials in the margins, but did not write his signature. In addition, there were no witnesses to the alterations (which were required because this was a typed will and not a holograph will). As a result, the alterations were invalid.

The Court considered whether the alterations could be validated under s. 21.1 of the SLRA, which allows Courts to validate a document or writing that would otherwise be invalid because it does not comply with the formal execution requirements. For alterations to be validated under s. 21.1, it must be proved that (1) the alterations are authentic, and (2), the alterations express the testator’s deliberate or fixed and final expression of intention as to the disposal of their property on death.

In Boyle, there was no question that the alterations were authentic. However, the Court found that the alterations were not a product of the testator’s deliberate or fixed and final intention. This is because the result of the alterations was a partial intestacy and, in the Court’s view, the testator did not intend for the residue of the estate to pass as an intestacy. There was no evidence that the testator was aware of the principles of intestate succession and there was no evidence that the testator intentionally struck out the operative portions of the residue clause because he preferred the distribution of the residue of his estate under the principles of intestacy.

The fact that the alterations were (1) made on multiple dates, (2) granted and removed shares in the residue of the estate, (3) lacked of clarity in their description, and (4) could not co-exist in an operative residue clause, supported the finding that the testator’s consideration of the distribution of the residue of his estate was, throughout, fluid. As a result, the Court did not validate the alterations pursuant to s. 21.1 of the SLRA and the original terms of the will and residue clause were confirmed. The Court noted that the alterations did not invalidate the residue clause because the alterations did not impair a clear reading of the residue clause.

If a testator wishes to make alterations to their will, they must ensure that they follow the execution requirements in s. 18 of the SLRA. Otherwise, they run the risk that their desired alterations to their will may be deemed invalid if challenged after they die.

[1] Boyle v. Boyle, 2026 ONSC 4919, at para. 25.

[2] Boyle v. Boyle, 2026 ONSC 4919, at para. 27.