Mayrand v. Dussault

Mayrand v. Dussault

Because the respondent as promoter and chief beneficiary failed to discharge the special onus placed on him to prove that the testator revoked the prior will and executed the 5 March 1904 will freely and without undue influence, and the evidence established a course of fraudulent suggestion (captation) by which the testator's affection for his wife was poisoned, the 5 March 1904 will was procured by undue influence and fraud and must be annulled.

Citation
(1907) 38 SCR 460
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Mathilda Mayrand; Respondent/defendant: Arsène Dussault; Mis En Cause/interested Parties: Denire Dussault and Others
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 April 1907
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (estates/wills) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Superior Court, Sitting in Review (montreal, Quebec)
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Will dated 5 March 1904 annulled. Action of appellant maintained.
Legal Topics
Testamentary Capacity, Undue Influence, Captation, Fraudulent Representation, Onus of Proof, Revocation of Will
Source Language
English
Estates Wills Succession Evidence Testamentary Capacity Undue Influence Captation Fraudulent Representation +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mathilda Mayrand

Appellant/plaintiff

Arsène Dussault

Respondent/defendant

Denire Dussault and Others

Mis En Cause/interested Parties

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (estates/wills) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Superior Court, Sitting in Review (montreal, Quebec)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 5 March 1904 will was procured by undue influence/captation and fraudulent suggestion
  2. 2 Whether the testator lacked testamentary capacity at the time of making the will
  3. 3 Burden of proof on a legatee/promoter who benefits from a will they procured

Ratio Decidendi

Because the respondent as promoter and chief beneficiary failed to discharge the special onus placed on him to prove that the testator revoked the prior will and executed the 5 March 1904 will freely and without undue influence, and the evidence established a course of fraudulent suggestion (captation) by which the testator's affection for his wife was poisoned, the 5 March 1904 will was procured by undue influence and fraud and must be annulled.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Will dated 5 March 1904 annulled. Action of appellant maintained.

Orders

  • Judgment of the Superior Court, sitting in review, set aside
  • Will executed on 5 March 1904 (before Lesage and Paquin, notaries) annulled