Woolley v. Desmond

Woolley v. Desmond

The clause in the will was ambiguous but extrinsic evidence (the marriage contract) shows the testatrix intended to allow her husband to live in the house after her death without granting him a claim to ownership; the will’s disposition to trustees is consistent with that obligation and, subject to the husband's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2007 ONCA 639
Parties
Applicant (appellant): George Woolley; Respondent (respondent in Appeal): Jeffrey Desmond
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Family (wills and Estates) / Appeal to the Court of Appeal From Order of the Superior Court of Justice Dated August 10, 2006
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Will Interpretation, Ambiguity and Extrinsic Evidence, Marriage Contract Effect on Estate, Residue Distribution, Costs on Appeal
Source Language
english
Family Law Wills and Estates Trusts Civil Procedure Will Interpretation Ambiguity and Extrinsic Evidence Marriage Contract Effect on Estate Residue Distribution +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Woolley

Applicant (appellant)

Jeffrey Desmond

Respondent (respondent in Appeal)

Procedural Posture

Family (wills and Estates) / Appeal to the Court of Appeal From Order of the Superior Court of Justice Dated August 10, 2006

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the clause in the will referring to the house was ambiguous
  2. 2 Whether extrinsic evidence may be admitted to interpret an ambiguous will clause
  3. 3 Effect of the marriage contract on the testatrix's testamentary disposition

Ratio Decidendi

The clause in the will was ambiguous but extrinsic evidence (the marriage contract) shows the testatrix intended to allow her husband to live in the house after her death without granting him a claim to ownership; the will’s disposition to trustees is consistent with that obligation and, subject to the husband's occupancy right, the house falls into residue and passes to the son; the appeal is dismissed and the trial judge's discretionary refusal to order costs out of the estate is not disturbed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Trial judge's order refusing to award costs out of the estate is upheld