Being disappointed by a will does not automatically entitle someone to require a full examination of its validity. In Neuberger Estate v. York, the Ontario Court of Appeal addressed the initial evidentiary threshold for a will challenge.

The dispute involved competing positions within a family about the deceased’s wills. Challenges alleged lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence. The Court of Appeal overturned decisions that had prevented the challenges from proceeding.

The Court explained that an interested person must identify some evidence which, if accepted, would call the will’s validity into question. The court has discretion over whether to require formal proof and how the proceeding should unfold.

This initial threshold does not require the challenger to prove the entire case at the outset. However, it protects estates from being subjected to expensive litigation merely because someone requests it.

The decision also distinguished the court’s responsibility to determine a will’s validity from arguments that a challenger’s earlier conduct should prevent the challenge.

What this could look like in practice

Suppose a beneficiary discovers that an earlier will divided an estate equally, while a later will substantially favours one sibling. Comparing the documents would identify the change, but a useful consultation would explore what else is known.

For example, the beneficiary might have messages describing confusion around the relevant period or firsthand observations about how instructions were communicated. Alternatively, correspondence might show that the deceased had discussed the revised plan clearly and consistently.

Organizing both helpful and unfavourable information allows a more realistic assessment than presenting only the unexpected result.

The takeaway

Before starting a challenge, identify the evidence supporting the concern and explain how it relates to the will’s validity. A focused initial assessment can help determine whether further investigation is justified and which questions genuinely require answers.

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.