Part 2 - Did Robert Meunier create a legally binding Will?

By Donna L. Gee

Let us take a look at how a Queen’s Court Justice ruled in Part II.

The evidence of Donna and Norman Henze of the events of that Valentine’s Day

evening and prior statements Robert had made about his wishes for his nieces would

determine the outcome of this case. The Henzes swore that Robert had only drank two

or three beers over the course of the evening, and that he understood what he was

dictating and signing. Furthermore, the Henzes recalled that Robert had told them prior

to the evening in question that he had told his sister he would look after her three

daughters should he pass on. Therefore, they said they were not surprised when he

decided to leave them his house.

Of note is the fact that the Henzes had nothing to gain by misrepresenting what had

transpired that evening or what they had been told earlier regarding Robert’s wishes. In

contrast, the deceased’s brother Roland swore that Robert had told him he had been

drinking throughout that night, had been drunk when he dictated his Will to Donna, and

had “played along with the joke” by signing the document. Roland also swore that later

that August, not long before Robert died, Robert had come to him very angry and had

said he did not know where the document was but to get rid of it.

Shortly after, while Robert was in a cancer care centre, Donna Henze and one of

Robert’s niece’s, along with Roland, came to visit and Donna gave the purported Will to

Roland after she took photos of it. Roland retained the Will, obtained a template form

Will from an Internet website, and gave it to Robert. Robert signed it but did not fill in

any of the clauses dealing with the disposition of his assets, nor did he date it or get it

witnessed. Robert said he would fill out the form Will after he got home from the cancer

centre, however he died just a few days later without having done so.

Roland subsequently was able to get an appointment as Personal Representative of his

brother’s estate after swearing that his brother had died intestate. Robert’s three nieces

then applied to Surrogate Court for Advice and Direction and an Order to remove

Roland as the Estate’s Personal Representative.

In her analysis of the law and evidence, the Honourable Justice Tamara Friesen found

the Document of February 14, 2020, noncompliant with the statutory requirements for a

formal Will as described in the Wills and Succession Act. The question then became

one of whether notwithstanding the flaws, there was clear evidence in any event of the

testator’s intentions. There was a clear indication of the assets, to whom these assets

were to be bequeathed and clear instructions as to how Robert wished his remains to

be dealt with (cremated, not buried). Donna and Norman Henze were qualified to be

witnesses, neither were beneficiaries, and both had testified as to Robert’s prior

statement regarding the house going to the nieces.

In regard to the allegation regarding Robert’s capacity, the honourable judge accepted

the evidence of the Henzes, looked to the orderly disposition of property, and

determined that even if some alcohol were consumed that night, it was not of any

amount to impair Robert’s capacity to make a Will. Regarding the first page, the

evidence supported a finding that it constituted a valid disposition of property and clear

testamentary capacity. However, the second page was deemed to not constitute part of

the Will because it was neither dated nor signed by Robert. Finally, in regard to

Roland’s role of Personal Representative, the judge determined he could continue in

this role, disposing of the house and other assets in accordance with the first page of

the Document as it did constitute a valid Will. Regarding the residue of the Estate,

Roland was directed to dispose of it in accordance with the terms of the Wills and

Succession Act dealing with intestacy.

What is the takeaway from the Meunier decision?

STAY TUNED TOMORROW FOR THE ANSWER ��