Stiles Estate v. Stiles, (2004) 357 A.R. 236 (CA)

• Judge: McFadyen, O'Leary and Costigan, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: October 14, 2004
• Citations: (2004), 357 A.R. 236 (CA);2004 ABCA 341

Stiles Estate v. Stiles (2004), 357 A.R. 236 (CA);

    334 W.A.C. 236

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. NO.006

Kenneth Stiles in His Capacity as the Personal Representative named in the Will of Gordon Edward Stiles, Deceased (respondent/plaintiff) v. Anne Leona Stiles (appellant/defendant)

(0301-0218-AC; 2004 ABCA 341)

Indexed As: Stiles Estate v. Stiles

Alberta Court of Appeal

McFadyen, O'Leary and Costigan, JJ.A.

October 14, 2004.

Summary:

The wife of a testator filed a notice of objection to the formal grant of probate of her husband's will. She claimed that the will was invalid and that her husband died intestate. She alleged that the testator lacked testamentary capacity and was unduly influenced or under duress.

The Alberta Surrogate Court ordered that the testator's will be proven in solemn form, that there be a trial to determine whether the testator had testamentary capacity to make the will, that the testamentary executor be designated as plaintiff and that the wife be designated as defendant.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 341 A.R. 249, ruled that the plaintiff established that the testator had testamentary capacity to give instructions and execute the will and the will having been proved in solemn form should be admitted into probate. The defendant appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Wills - Topic 302

Testamentary capacity - General principles - What constitutes - [See Wills - Topic 307 ].

Wills - Topic 307

Testamentary capacity - General principles - Relevant time for - On April 20, 1999, the testator, who was being treated for cancer, instructed his lawyer to draft a will naming the testator's brother as executor and bequeathing property to his nephews - Some of that property would have gone to the testator's wife upon an intestacy - On April 27, 1999, the testator executed the will - The testator died on August 10, 1999 - The wife claimed that the will was invalid because of lack of testamentary capacity - The trial judge rejected the claim - The trial judge addressed the testator's mental capacity and/or competency when he gave instructions to his lawyer on April 20, 1999, and when he executed the will on April 27, 1999 - The trial judge found it significant that the testator was able to give a complicated set of instructions on April 20, 1999, which not only indicated the extent of his assets and an accurate description of them, but also recognized his responsibilities toward his wife's maintenance, the difficulties he was having in separating two one-quarter sections and his desire to insure that the family farmlands would eventually pass on to his nephews - The trial judge found that the testator had full testamentary capacity on April 20, 1999 - The trial judge also rejected the wife's argument that, as a result of a 1996 accident, the testator suffered from delusions which affected his testamentary capacity - The Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's ruling.

Wills - Topic 409

Testamentary capacity - Mental disabilities - Confused state of mind - [See Wills - Topic 541 ].

Wills - Topic 541

Testamentary capacity - Evidence and proof - Doctrine of suspicious circumstances - On April 20, 1999, the testator, who was being treated for cancer, instructed his lawyer to draft a will naming the testator's brother as executor and bequeathing property to his nephews - Some of that property would have gone to the testator's wife upon an intestacy - On April 27, 1999, the testator executed the will - The testator died on August 10, 1999 - The wife claimed that the will was invalid because of lack of testamentary capacity - The trial judge rejected the claim - However, the trial judge ruled that there were suspicious circumstances here arising because of the gravity of the testator's illness and the medical treatments he was undergoing, i.e., radiation and the medications given to him and the fluctuations in the sodium level in his system giving rise to the possibility of varying degrees of confusion - The Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the ruling.

Counsel:

A.H. Trawick, Q.C., and J.A. Bullock, for the appellant, Anne Leona Stiles;

M.C. Freeman, for the respondent, Kenneth Stiles.

This appeal was heard on October 14, 2004, by McFadyen, O'Leary and Costigan, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On October 14, 2004, Costigan, J.A., delivered the following memorandum of judgment from the Bench for the Court of Appeal, which was filed in writing on October 26, 2004.