Re Beals Estate, 2026 NSSC 73 (CanLII)
Reading Time: 4 minutes (approx.)
By: Fiona Costello (articled clerk)
Laura Beals died in July 2023, leaving an estate consisting primarily of a home assessed at approximately $112,000 and a bank account held jointly with her daughter Crystal containing about $27,000. In 2018, she had executed a Will appointing her grandson, Lindsay, as executor and beneficiary of her estate. The Will expressly disinherited her seven children: Leanne, Rosella, Roland, Robert, Winston, Crystal, and Rolenda.
After Laura’s death, the original signed Will could not be located. Lindsay applied for Proof in Solemn Form, asking the court to recognize two documents as his grandmother’s valid Will: a 2021 photograph of the signed original and an unsigned copy from the drafting solicitor’s file. Crystal and Rolenda contended that the estate should be distributed under the laws of intestacy, relying on the presumption of revocation (where a Will last known to be in the deceased’s possession cannot be found after their death, creating an inference that it was destroyed with the intention of revoking it).
The court accepted that Lindsay shared a close, supportive relationship with Laura. He had lived with her for approximately ten years before her death, during which time he assisted with her daily care and maintenance of the home, and the court found that Laura had repeatedly communicated to ‘everyone’ her intention that Lindsay would receive the house upon her death. The court also noted that the Will that expressly stated in relation to the disinheritance of her children, “my children are self-sustained adults with their own families and are aware of my intentions” [para 113], but Lindsay had a disability and lives on a fixed income. Crystal and Rolenda suggested that Laura and Lindsay’s relationship was at times strained and marked by conflict, however, their evidence was treated as generally self-serving and unreliable. The court preferred the applicant-led evidence on all material points, stating “my conclusions on the issue of credibility, in this case, were not difficult ones” [para 106], noting in particular Crystal’s withdrawal of more than $25,000 from Laura’s bank account after her death, evidence of trips and a vehicle purchased around the same time, and Crystal’s reluctance to obtain account records.
The court accepted that the Will was seen in an envelope in Laura’s bedside dresser drawer in 2021, when the photographs of it were taken, and again in 2022, when Laura showed Lindsay and Crystal the envelope and told them where it was kept. In February 2023, following Laura’s severe stroke and hospitalization, the Will was seen in the bedside dresser by Leanne and Roland. The court found that the Will was still in Laura’s bedside dresser upon her return home in late June 2023; at this time, Laura could not speak, walk, move her arms, or use her hands to feed herself, and was bedridden, requiring around-the-clock care. The court was satisfied that Laura did not have the requisite physical capacity to revoke, renounce, or destroy the Will, nor was there any evidence that she had any desire to do so. The more probable explanation was that the Will was lost after her death. As the court observed, the family generally knew where the Will was kept and “anyone in the home could have accessed the Will either before Laura returned home in June 2023, or afterward. As such, there was more than ample opportunity for the Will to have been secreted away and/or destroyed” [para 100]. Ultimately, the court found that the presumption of revocation was refuted and that the Will remained extant. Proof in Solemn Form was granted, recognizing the photographs of the executed Will and the unexecuted copy as Laura’s valid final testament.
The decision also serves as a useful review of evidentiary principles regarding hearsay. The litigation featured an extensive affidavit record, with numerous materials filed by family members, supporting witnesses, and counsel. The court assessed over 100 impugned passages under the Civil Procedure Rules, the common law hearsay framework, and section 45 of the Nova Scotia Evidence Act. By individually addressing each statement and providing specific reasons for exclusion, such as speculation or irrelevance, the court provided a practical guide for the treatment of hearsay in estate litigation.
