Field v. James et al., (2001) 151 B.C.A.C. 106 (CA)
Judge | Rowles, Prowse and Finch, JJ.A. |
Court | Court of Appeal (British Columbia) |
Case Date | April 09, 2001 |
Jurisdiction | British Columbia |
Citations | (2001), 151 B.C.A.C. 106 (CA);2001 BCCA 267 |
Field v. James (2001), 151 B.C.A.C. 106 (CA);
249 W.A.C. 106
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2001] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MY.043
Nicholas James, Christine James, Deborah James, Victoria Heron also known as Vickie Sweeting, Lisa Sweeting, Gina Sweeting, Rosemary Leppard, Katherine Leppard and Elsa G. Field (plaintiffs/respondents) v. Cynthia Field, Vanson Field and Sylvia Tai also known as Sylvia Ho (defendants/appellants)
(V03478; 2001 BCCA 267)
Indexed As: Field v. James et al.
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Rowles, Prowse and Finch, JJ.A.
April 9, 2001.
Summary:
Field executed wills in March 1991 and August 1991. Two actions were brought: the first respecting the March will, the second respecting the August will. The actions were ordered to be heard together. In both actions there were allegations that Field lacked testamentary capacity and that undue influence was imposed upon Field by members of his family.
The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported in 15 B.C.T.C. 341, held that the August 1991 will had been proved in solemn form and should be admitted to probate. Field had testamentary capacity at the time of its execution and there was no undue influence. It was unnecessary to consider the March will. The testator's second wife and adopted son appealed.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Rowles, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.
Wills - Topic 303
Testamentary capacity - General principles - Tests for determining capacity - The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Prowse, J.A., noted that one of the critical factors relevant to a testator's testamentary capacity was the ability to comprehend and recollect the nature and extent of his property - See paragraph 140.
Wills - Topic 531
Testamentary capacity - Evidence and proof - General - A trial judge admitted an August 1991 will to probate, having found that the testator had testamentary capacity at the time of its execution - The trial judge refused to permit a medical doctor whose report was in evidence to testify as to what he meant by the terms "the simplest of wills" or "a few simple dispositions" - The British Columbia Court of Appeal ordered a new trial, because the trial judge refused to explore relevant and potentially critical evidence which cast doubt on the testator's capacity - See paragraphs 107 to 148.
Cases Noticed:
Leger v. Poirier, [1944] S.C.R. 152; [1944] 3 D.L.R. 1, refd to. [para. 39].
Banks v. Goodfellow (1870), L.R. 5 Q.B. 549, refd to. [paras. 39, 140].
Boyse v. Rossborough, [1843-60] All E.R. Rep. 610 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 43].
Goodman Estate v. Geffen, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 353; 127 N.R. 241; 125 A.R. 81; 14 W.A.C. 81; 81 D.L.R.(4th) 211, refd to. [para. 44].
MacGregor v. Martin Estate, [1965] S.C.R. 757; 53 D.L.R.(2d) 126, refd to. [para. 44].
Love Estate v. Clements, [1993] B.C.J. No. 2058 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 44].
Wong v. Wong et al., [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. 993 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 44].
O'Neil v. Royal Trust Co., [1946] S.C.R. 622; [1946] 4 D.L.R. 545, affing. (1945), 61 B.C.R. 544 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 51, 77].
Craig v. Lamoureux, [1920] A.C. 349; 50 D.L.R. 10 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 52].
Hay Estate, Re, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 876; 183 N.R. 1; 82 O.A.C. 161; 125 D.L.R.(4th) 431, consd. [para. 53].
Vout v. Hay - see Hay Estate, Re.
Stein Estate v. Ship Kathy K, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 802; 6 N.R. 359; 62 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 71].
Schwartz, Re (1970), 10 D.L.R.(3d) 15 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].
Price, Re, [1946] 2 D.L.R. 592 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].
Spence v. Price - see Price, Re.
Stirling Estate, Re (1993), 134 N.B.R.(2d) 17; 342 A.P.R. 17; 49 E.T.R. 262 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].
Marquis v. Weston - see Stirling Estate, Re.
Armitage Estate, Re (1990), 95 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 251 A.P.R. 91 (Prob. Ct.), affd. (1991), 106 N.S.R.(2d) 101; 288 A.P.R. 101 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].
Candido v. Ciardullo (1991), 45 E.T.R. 99 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 77].
Baker Estate v. Myhre (1995), 168 A.R. 248; 28 Alta. L.R.(3d) 428 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 77].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Feeney, Thomas G., Canadian Law of Wills (4th Ed. 2000), § 2.5 [para. 77].
Counsel:
Robert T.C. Johnston, Q.C., for the appellants, Cynthia Field and Vanson Field;
John L. Finlay and Kathryn J. Chapman, for the respondents.
This appeal was heard on January 11, 2001, at Victoria, British Columbia, before Rowles, Prowse and Finch, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.
The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered at Vancouver, British Columbia, on April 9, 2001, and the following opinions were filed:
Rowles, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 1 to 106;
Prowse, J.A. - see paragraphs 107 to 144;
Finch, J.A. - see paragraphs 145 to 148.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Peterson v. Welwood, 2018 BCSC 1379
...capacity is a highly individualized inquiry and is a question of fact to be determined in all the circumstances: James v. Field, 2001 BCCA 267 at para. 51; Laszlo at para. [97] Testamentary capacity is, at its core, a legal construct and not a medical concept. While medical evidence may be ......
-
Laszlo et al. v. Lawton et al., [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 305 (SC)
...courts will not overturn a finding as to capacity unless the trial judge has made a palpable and overriding error: James v. Field , 2001 BCCA 267 at para. 71 [ James ]. [198] Testamentary capacity is not a medical concept or diagnosis; it is a legal construct. Accordingly, scientific or med......
-
From Estate, 2019 ABQB 988
...v. Brown Estate, [1946] S.C.R. 622 [O'Neil]; Spence v. Price (1945), [1946] 2 D.L.R. 592 at 595-96 (Ont. C.A.); James [James v. Field, 2001 BCCA 267] at para. 77; Miliwat v. Gagné, 2009 BCSC 1447, aff'd 2010 BCCA 323 [122] Indeed, the evidence of lay witnesses can be preferred to the eviden......
-
RMK v NK, 2020 ABQB 328
...witnesses can be preferred to the evidence of medical witnesses with respect to determination of testamentary capacity: James v Field, 2001 BCCA 267 at para 77; Stewart v McLean, 2003 ABQB 96 at para 200; Sweetnam v Lesage, 2016 ONSC 4058 at para 802, upheld on appeal by 2017 ONCA 991, leav......
-
Peterson v. Welwood, 2018 BCSC 1379
...capacity is a highly individualized inquiry and is a question of fact to be determined in all the circumstances: James v. Field, 2001 BCCA 267 at para. 51; Laszlo at para. [97] Testamentary capacity is, at its core, a legal construct and not a medical concept. While medical evidence may be ......
-
Laszlo et al. v. Lawton et al., [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 305 (SC)
...courts will not overturn a finding as to capacity unless the trial judge has made a palpable and overriding error: James v. Field , 2001 BCCA 267 at para. 71 [ James ]. [198] Testamentary capacity is not a medical concept or diagnosis; it is a legal construct. Accordingly, scientific or med......
-
From Estate, 2019 ABQB 988
...v. Brown Estate, [1946] S.C.R. 622 [O'Neil]; Spence v. Price (1945), [1946] 2 D.L.R. 592 at 595-96 (Ont. C.A.); James [James v. Field, 2001 BCCA 267] at para. 77; Miliwat v. Gagné, 2009 BCSC 1447, aff'd 2010 BCCA 323 [122] Indeed, the evidence of lay witnesses can be preferred to the eviden......
-
RMK v NK, 2020 ABQB 328
...witnesses can be preferred to the evidence of medical witnesses with respect to determination of testamentary capacity: James v Field, 2001 BCCA 267 at para 77; Stewart v McLean, 2003 ABQB 96 at para 200; Sweetnam v Lesage, 2016 ONSC 4058 at para 802, upheld on appeal by 2017 ONCA 991, leav......