Stuart v. Estate of Vernon Allan Sanford et al., 2025 NBCA 110 (CanLII)
By: Fiona Costello (Articled Clerk)
Reading Time: 3 minutes (approx.)
In 2006, Vernon Sanford executed a will dividing the residue of his estate equally between his two eldest sons, Nathanial and Jonathan, stating:
“To divide the rest and residue of my estate into two (2) equal shares so there is one such share for each of my children, namely, NATHANIAL JOHN SANFORD, and JONATHAN KENT SANFORD…”
At the time, Mr. Sanford had three sons. From his first marriage came Nathanial, born 1979, and Jonathan, born 1982. Lee was born in 2004 from another relationship. After Mr. Sanford’s death, Lee argued that the will should be interpreted to include him as an equal beneficiary of the estate alongside his two stepbrothers.
The trial judge examined the words of the will and found that the language was clear and unambiguous. The court then considered that in 2022, Mr. Sanford contributed to and designated Lee as the beneficiary of an RRSP. The trial judge treated the 2022 RRSP as surrounding circumstances which supported the notion that Mr. Sanford had made separate provision for Lee outside the will and therefore intended that the residue pass only to Nathanial and Jonathan.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in relying on post-execution evidence. Under the “armchair rule,” a court must place itself in the position of the testator at the time the will was executed and interpret the will in light of the surrounding circumstances known at that time. This step is necessary even when the words of the will appear clear and unambiguous because the surrounding circumstances of the testator may reveal latent ambiguities or nuances not immediately apparent from the text alone. The Court of Appeal nevertheless concluded that the error did not affect the outcome. Even when the proper surrounding circumstances are considered, the wording of the will is clear and cannot reasonably be interpreted as including Lee without introducing elements that do not appear from the text.
The court concluded that Lee met the criteria of an eligible dependant under the Provision for Dependants Act. In assessing what, if any, provision was appropriate, the court noted that Lee was still a minor and financially dependent on his father at the time of his death. The court also considered the value of the estate and Lee’s close relationship with his father. In the end, the court sought to respect Mr. Sanford’s written intentions and did not award Lee an equal share of the residue. Instead, Lee received 20%, with the remaining 80% to be split equally between Nathanial and Jonathan.
The decision confirms that when considering surrounding circumstances, only those facts known to the testator at the time the will was executed should be considered. Though surrounding circumstances must be considered in conjunction with the plain meaning of the testator’s words, the plain meaning cannot be circumvented when the words of the will are clear and unambiguous.
