Stoneham and Tewkesbury v. Ouellet

Stoneham and Tewkesbury v. Ouellet

The Court allowed the appeal because the Court of Appeal improperly retried the facts and disregarded the Superior Court judge's credibility findings; on the whole record the trial judge did not manifestly err in finding the August 1, 1972 will was procured by undue influence and the Superior Court's order vacating that will must be restored.

Citation
[1979] 2 SCR 172
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Municipal Corporation of United District of Stoneham and Tewkesbury; Respondent / Defendant: Roch Ouellet
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 May 1979
Procedural Posture
Appeal; Will Contest (undue Influence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Quebec
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of Court of Appeal set aside; judgment of Superior Court restored.
Legal Topics
Undue Influence (captation), Capacity/incapacity, Appellate Review of Credibility Findings, Presumptions of Law (arts. 993, 2202 Ccq)
Source Language
English
Wills and Estates Evidence Appeal/procedural Law Undue Influence (captation) Capacity/incapacity Appellate Review of Credibility Findings Presumptions of Law (arts. 993, 2202 Ccq)

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

Municipal Corporation of United District of Stoneham and Tewkesbury

Appellant / Plaintiff

Roch Ouellet

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal; Will Contest (undue Influence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the August 1, 1972 will was procured by undue influence
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in substituting its assessment of credibility and evidence for that of the trial judge
  3. 3 Whether presumptions in Civil Code arts. 993 and 2202 shift or reverse the burden of proof

Ratio Decidendi

The Court allowed the appeal because the Court of Appeal improperly retried the facts and disregarded the Superior Court judge's credibility findings; on the whole record the trial judge did not manifestly err in finding the August 1, 1972 will was procured by undue influence and the Superior Court's order vacating that will must be restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of Court of Appeal set aside; judgment of Superior Court restored.

Orders

  • Vacate the will dated August 1, 1972; Superior Court judgment restoring vacatur affirmed
  • Costs awarded to appellant throughout