A will-maker can revoke a will. There are a number of ways to do so, and there is also a presumption that a will-maker revoked their will if the will was last in the will-maker’s possession and cannot be located. If the presumption is rebutted by evidence to the contrary, a copy of the will may be submitted for probate instead of the missing original.
First, the ways to revoke a will (other than an electronic will) are set out at section 55(1) of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act [“WESA”]:
- By another will made by the will-maker made in accordance with WESA;
- By a written declaration of the will-maker that revokes all or part of a will made in accordance with WESA;
- By the will-maker, or a person in the presence of the will-maker and by the will-maker’s direction, burning, tearing or destroying all or part of the will in some manner with the intention of revoking all or part of it; or
- By any other act of the will-maker, or another person in the presence of the will-maker and by the will-maker’s direction, if the court determines under s. 58 that (a) the consequence of the act of the will-maker or the other person is apparent on the face of the will; and (b) the act was done with the intent of the will-maker to revoke the will in whole or in part.
#3 above has two elements:
- The will must be physically burned, torn or destroyed; and
- The will-maker must have intended to revoke by that destruction.
In addition to taking one of the active steps above to revoke a will, there is a common law presumption of revocation that may apply in certain circumstances, which has been described as follows:
If a Will last known to be in custody of testator is not found at his death, the presumption is that the testator destroyed it with the intention of revoking it (“animo revocandi”). However, that presumption may be rebutted by evidence, written or oral, of the facts. The strength of the presumption will depend on the character of the custody which the testator had over the Will.
Proof that the will-maker was last in possession and the Will cannot be located leads to the presumed facts of destruction and intention. The presumption is based upon an assumption that people their important documents safe, and so if an important document like a Will is missing it is more likely than not that the testator intentionally destroyed it.
However, the presumption can be rebutted by evidence. For example, it could be shown that the will was lost or misplaced.
This issue was recently considered by the B.C. Supreme Court in Galloway Estate (Re) 2023 BCSC 1204.
In Galloway, the deceased made a Will. He was given the original Will and his law firm retained a copy. The deceased had no children and no spouse at the time of his death. Both his parents were deceased and he had one sister. If there was no will and his estate passed on an intestacy, it would go to his sister. The Will left his estate to his mother’s god-daughter (who was also named as executor).
The god-daughter argued that the Will was valid (so that she would receive the entire estate). The sister relied upon the common law presumption of revocation, and argued that the deceased revoked the Will and died intestate (so that she would receive the entire estate).
The god-daughter performed a diligent search of all reasonable places, and no Will was located.
The Court observed that all relevant facts in a case must be considered, and they referred to the following non-exhaustive list of factors from another B.C. Supreme Court case:
- whether the terms of the will are reasonable;
- whether the deceased continued to have good relationships with the beneficiaries under the will up to the date of death;
- whether personal effects of the deceased were destroyed prior to the search for the will being carried out;
- the nature and character of the deceased in terms of taking care of their personal effects;
- whether there were any dispositions of property that support or contradict the terms of the will;
- statements made by the testator confirming or contradicting the terms of distribution set out in the will;
- whether the deceased was of the character to store valuable papers and whether the deceased had a safe place to store papers;
- whether there is evidence that the deceased understood the consequences of not having a will, and the effect of an intestacy; and
- whether the deceased made statements indicating the deceased had a will.
The Court in Galloway held that the presumption of revocation was rebutted. It was more likely than not that the Will was lost or misplaced by the Deceased, or accidently disposed of by the specialty trauma cleaning company that cleaned the deceased’s property to make it safe to access after death (the deceased having been discovered approximately six weeks after his death).
The Court considered the various facts, but a key factor was that the family had been in previous litigation, in which the deceased was “against” his sister. If the deceased died without a will, this would give his sister the very property that the litigation was conducted to reclaim. If he died intestate, then his sister would be relieved of her obligation to pay special costs in that prior litigation, but the deceased had been actively pursuing payment of the cost awards by his sister at his death.
The Court pronounced the force and validity of the Will in solemn form, and ordered that a copy of the Will be admitted to probate.
This case illustrates the complications that may arise if the original will cannot be located. Of course this would have been avoided if the deceased had kept his original in a safe place, and had advised someone of the location of the original will.