Re Martin ; MacGregor v. Ryan

Re Martin ; MacGregor v. Ryan

Concurrent findings of fact by the Surrogate Judge and the Court of Appeal that the testatrix had testamentary capacity and that undue influence was not proven were supported by the evidence; the caveator failed to discharge the burden of proving undue influence and the proponents had dispelled the suspicion arising from the circumstances; appeal dismissed.

Citation
[1965] SCR 757
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff (caveator): Stewart MacGregor; Respondent/defendant (surviving Executor): David Stewart Ryan; Deceased: Estate of Catherine Agnes Martin
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 June 1965
Procedural Posture
Wills/probate (validity of Will) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (final Disposition)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (majority). Dissent would have allowed appeal and refused probate.
Legal Topics
Testamentary Capacity, Undue Influence, Onus of Proof, Probate, Execution of Wills
Source Language
English
Estates Wills Succession Testamentary Capacity Undue Influence Onus of Proof Probate Execution of Wills

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

Stewart MacGregor

Appellant/plaintiff (caveator)

David Stewart Ryan

Respondent/defendant (surviving Executor)

Estate of Catherine Agnes Martin

Deceased

Procedural Posture

Wills/probate (validity of Will) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (final Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the testatrix had testamentary capacity when the will was executed
  2. 2 Whether the will was procured by undue influence
  3. 3 Which party bore the burden to dispel suspicion arising from the circumstances of execution

Ratio Decidendi

Concurrent findings of fact by the Surrogate Judge and the Court of Appeal that the testatrix had testamentary capacity and that undue influence was not proven were supported by the evidence; the caveator failed to discharge the burden of proving undue influence and the proponents had dispelled the suspicion arising from the circumstances; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (majority). Dissent would have allowed appeal and refused probate.

Orders

  • Costs of the surviving executor to be paid out of the estate as between solicitor and client.
  • Costs of the caveator to be paid from the estate on a party-and-party basis.