An unexpected inheritance may raise questions, but suspicion alone does not establish that a will is invalid. In Vout v. Hay, the Supreme Court of Canada explained how courts approach suspicious circumstances and allegations of undue influence.

An elderly man left most of his estate to a younger friend who had helped him with work on his farm. His relatives challenged the will, raising concerns about her involvement in its preparation and inconsistencies in her evidence.

The Court explained that the person seeking to establish a will’s validity bears the legal burden of proving proper execution, knowledge and approval, and testamentary capacity. Ordinarily, certain presumptions assist that person. Suspicious circumstances can remove the benefit of the relevant presumptions, requiring affirmative evidence of knowledge and approval and, where implicated, capacity.

However, the burden of proving fraud or undue influence remains with the person alleging it. Suspicious circumstances do not automatically reverse that burden. The Supreme Court restored the trial judgment admitting the will to probate.

What this could look like in practice

Imagine a parent who changes a longstanding estate plan shortly before death, leaving most assets to a new companion. A concerned child might want to understand who arranged the appointment, who provided instructions, and whether the parent spoke privately with the drafting lawyer.

Those questions provide a starting point for investigation. They should be considered alongside evidence that may explain the change, including the parent’s own communications and the history of the relationship.

A useful chronology would distinguish firsthand observations from assumptions about another person’s motives.

The takeaway

A careful will challenge identifies the particular concern: capacity, understanding of the document, improper pressure, or another issue. Treating those concerns separately helps focus the evidence and avoids assuming that an unusual estate plan must have resulted from wrongdoing.

The information on this page is provided for general educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. These summaries highlight selected principles and do not address every issue or subsequent legal development. Examples are hypothetical and do not predict the outcome of any case. The application of a decision depends on the facts and applicable law. Reading this page or contacting our firm does not, by itself, create a lawyer-client relationship. If you have further questions or require advice about your situation, please contact us.