Undue influence is a well-established and popular ground for challenging a will. However, proving undue influence is notoriously difficult. Although best described as murky, many clients often believe the existence of undue influence is obvious in their situation: their evil stepmother pressured their vulnerable father, their conniving cousin insinuated himself into the heart of their […]
As noted by one jurist[1], to the extent that it was not clear prior, the Ontario Court of Appeal made it abundantly clear in McDougald Estate v. Gooderham[2] that the modern approach to fixing costs in estate litigation is to carefully scrutinize the litigation and, unless the court finds that some public policy consideration applies,
Recent amendments to Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rules”) have introduced sweeping changes meant to make the civil justice system more affordable and accessible. The changes are the most significant in a generation; litigation in Ontario will not be the same. Among the changes is the addition of the proportionality rule as an overarching principle
Will Challenges are becoming more common. Whether it is the result of the much-vaunted and long-heralded wealth transfer between generations, the aging of society, or an American inspired litigious approach to sorting out life’s inevitable disputes, Will Challenges will likely only increase in quantity and complexity. Laying the groundwork for a Will Challenge is obviously
Will and Power of Attorney (“POA”) challenges are becoming more common. Whether it is the result of the much-vaunted and long-heralded wealth transfer between generations, the aging of society, or an American inspired litigious approach to sorting out life’s inevitable disputes, these court challenges will likely only increase in quantity and complexity. Laying the groundwork
