Offices in Ottawa and Perth
(613) 722-1500

CONTACT US (613) 722-1500

Ambiguous Wording in Will Has Court Grappling With Question of Life Interest vs. License

Ambiguous Wording in Will Has Court Grappling With Question of Life Interest vs. License

By:

Mann Lawyers

Posted February 16, 2021

Will interpretation cases are always interesting and serve as an important reminder to use great care when drafting estate planning documents.

Barsoski v. Wesley was an application for directions in which the interpretation of the Will for a determination of the proprietary interests of the respondent, Robert Wesley, was at issue.

Diana Barsoski was a long-time friend of Robert’s for over 25 years. Her Last Will and Testament of December 2016 left a $250,000 cash bequest to Robert and provided that the estate trustee hold her house and its contents “as a home for Robert Wesley (”Robert”) during his lifetime or for such shorter period as Robert desires.” Upon the earlier of the respondent advising the trustees that he “no longer wishes to live in the House, Robert no longer living in the House,” his death or Robert predeceasing Ms. Barsoski, the estate trustee was directed to sell the house and add the proceeds of the sale to a gift to St. Stephens House of London.

The Will further established a fund of $500,000 for the purpose of professionally maintaining the house while the respondent “occupies” it. However, if Robert no longer lived in that house, that sum was to be held in trust until Robert’s death, to be provided by the trustee to him for his living expenses or used to pay for his nursing or retirement home care and or all funeral expenses. On his death, any amount of money remaining in the trust was to be delivered to St. Stephens.

Diana died in June 2017.

After some investigation engaged by the beneficiary church a question arose as to whether Robert was ‘living’ in the house as required by the terms of the will.

The evidence was that Robert continued to work full time in Toronto while an acquaintance of his was living in the house. The charity submitted that Robert was not living in the house and that it should be sold and proceeds directed to the church.

Robert’s evidence was that the house was his primary residence, he stayed there on the weekends, and used the address for income tax purposes and his driver’s license. He also testified that he intended to live at the house when he retired.

The issue to be determined by the court was whether the terms of the will granted Robert a license or a life estate for his use of the house subject to a condition subsequent. In either case his interest would terminate when he was no longer living in the house. The court also considered whether the license or life interest now expired as he has not been living in the house as contemplated by the will. In the alternative, the court had to decide if the determining event “no longer living in the home” was void for uncertainty.

The court considered the relevant surrounding circumstances at the time Diana made her will. The most persuasive piece of evidence the court considered was the fund established by Diana for the benefit of Robert. The court concluded that Diana’s intention was to provide Robert with a license to use the house and not a life interest as the fund was not only to be used for the cost of maintaining the house, but it was a fixed amount that broadly provided for Robert’s living expenses irrespective of where he lived for the remainder of his life.

The court concluded that the terms ‘no longer living’ creates uncertainty such that the condition subsequent is invalid. It was impossible for the court to determine on the terms of Diana’s will what it means to ‘live’ in the house. The terms do not explain what the respondent needs to demonstrate that he is living in the house or when he must establish that act. For example, when he must move in, how long he can be absent, or for how long he must be occupying the house to be considered to be living there.

The result is that the entire gift of the house to the respondent in the will fails. The trustee was ordered to sell the house and pay proceeds to the Church.

It is worthwhile to note that the court rejected the evidence of the drafting lawyer (who was the estate trustee bringing the application for directions) that there was a subsequent unexecuted will that provided a time period for Robert to move into the house after Diana’s death and not to be absent from it for more than a specified amount of days. Had there been such guidance in the will it may well have prevented litigation.

This blog post was written by Ines Jelic, a member of our Wills and Estates and Estate Litigation teams.  She can be contacted at 613-566-2055, or by email at ines.jelic@mannlawyers.com.

More Resources

Blog |
Family Law
By: 

Posted July 18, 2024

In the realm of family law, the division of assets during a separation or divorce can be a complex and emotionally charged process. Among the[...]
Blog |
Business Law
By: 
Can the use of a “thumbs-up” emoji in a text message create legally binding obligations? Last summer’s decision by the Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench,[...]
Blog |
Real Estate
By: 

Posted June 26, 2024

A 2023 Ontario Superior Court case, Lake v Cambridge (City), 2023 ONSC 5200, confirmed that a purchaser is entitled to complete a transfer relying on[...]
Blog |
Business Law
By: 

Posted June 18, 2024

This is an update on my earlier blog posted in 2022 titled “New Requirements for Private Federal Corporations to Report Individuals with Significant Control Coming[...]
Blog |
Estate Litigation
By: 

Posted June 11, 2024

“For it is in giving that we receive.” –Francis of Assisi Many of us grew up hearing this mantra. Good people give back. Generous people[...]
Blog |
Real Estate
By: 
What is title? “Title” is a legal term for a person or company’s rights of ownership in a private property. This is different from a[...]
Ines Jelic

Ines Jelic

I practice exclusively in the areas of estate litigation and wills and estates law. My compassionate, yet competitive, spirit fuels my desire to be a strong advocate for my clients. Legal issues in estate litigation can be very complex and intertwined. I enjoy empowering my clients with knowledge and take the time to explain the process, with an ability to deal with sensitive and difficult client situations in a professional and gracious manner. My goal is to provide exceptional client service while obtaining the best, most cost and time-efficient resolution possible – whether that means negotiating a settlement or going to court. Being able to help clients plan for the inevitable is an honour and a privilege I value greatly. Every estate plan is unique to each client and I take the time to understand my clients’ goals and needs in order to ensure their wishes can be carried out... Read More

Read More About Ines Jelic

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

"*" indicates required fields

Name*
Consent*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.