Hrycan Estate v. Hrycan, (1986) 49 Sask.R. 277 (QB)

• Judge: Grotsky, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: July 22, 1986
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1986), 49 Sask.R. 277 (QB)

Hrycan Estate v. Hrycan (1986), 49 Sask.R. 277 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Dmytro Stadnyk, as Administrator ad Litem of the Estate of Sophie Hrycan, Deceased v. Alex Hrycan

(No. 3813 A.D. 1983)

Indexed As: Hrycan Estate v. Hrycan

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Grotsky, J.

July 22, 1986.

Summary:

An elderly woman executed a power of attorney and a will. The documents were challenged on the ground that the woman lacked testamentary capacity and was a victim of undue influence surrounding the execution of the documents.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the woman had testamentary capacity, there was no evidence of undue influence and therefore the challenged documents were valid.

Wills - Topic 301

Testamentary capacity - General principles - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench reviewed the law respecting testamentary capacity - See paragraphs 73 to 76.

Wills - Topic 534

Testamentary capacity - Evidence and proof - Onus of proof - General - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that when a will is challenged on the basis of a lack of testamentary capacity, the person propounding the will has the onus of proving testamentary capacity on a balance of probabilities - The court also discussed what was meant by proof on a "balance of probabilities" in the context of proving testamentary capacity - See paragraphs 77 to 83.

Wills - Topic 1701

Preparation and execution - Undue influence - General - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench reviewed the law on undue influence - See paragraphs 84 to 98.

Cases Noticed:

Leger v. Poirier, [1944] S.C.R. 152, refd to. [para. 74].

Banks v. Goodfellow (1870), L.R. 5 Q.B. 549; 39 L.J.Q.B. 237, refd to. [paras. 75, 77, 98].

Ingoldsby v. Ingoldsby (1873), 20 Gr. 131, refd to. [para. 75].

Ouderkirk v. Ouderkirk, [1936] S.C.R. 619, refd to. [para. 75].

Dynna et al. v. Grant et al.; Re Estate of Grant, 3 Sask.R. 135 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].

Tyrrell v. Painton, [1894] P. 151; 70 L.T. 453, refd to. [para. 77].

Robins v. National Trust Company, [1927] 1 W.W.R. 692; [1927] A.C. 515; 96 L.J.P.C. 84, refd to. [para. 78].

Smith v. Smith, [1952] 2 S.C.R. 312, refd to. [para. 81].

Re Martin; MacGregor v. Ryan, [1956] S.C.R. 757, refd to. [para. 83].

Craig v. Lamoureux, [1920] A.C. 349; 89 L.J.P.C. 22; [1919] 3 W.W.R. 1101, refd to. [paras. 84, 93, 97].

Wingrove v. Wingrove (1885), 11 P.D. 81, refd to. [paras. 86, 93, 97].

Baudains v. Richardson, [1906] A.C. 169; 75 L.J.P.C. 57, refd to. [paras. 93, 97].

Hall v. Hall, L.R. 1 P. & D. 451, refd to. [para. 95].

Parfitt v. Lawless (1872), L.R. 2 P. & D. 462; 41 L.J.(P.) 68, refd to. [para. 96].

Lloyd v. Robertson (1916), 35 O.L.R. 264, refd to. [para. 98].

Authors and Works Noticed:

MacDonnell, Sheard and Hull, Probate Practice (3rd Ed.), p. 37 [para. 86].

Sopinka and Lederman, The Law of Evidence in Civil Cases (5th Ed.), pp. 384, 385 [para. 80].

Counsel:

G.M. Currie and M. Power, for the plaintiff;

M.R. Cherneskey, Q.C., for the defendant.

This case was heard before Grotsky, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, who delivered the following decision on July 22, 1986: