In this case, both parties argued that the application judge erred in finding that the instructions in the will were inconsistent and that it was necessary to resort to the “chair rule”. In their view, the testator`s intention could be seen from the simple language of her will, although she promoted diametrically opposed interpretations of that language. The court disagreed. First, it concluded that the applicant`s method of interpretation was sound. He had tried to distinguish the testator`s intention from the clear meaning of the wording of the will. However, unable to do so, he took a step back to examine the “big picture” of the surrounding circumstances by applying the “chair rule”. In this discussion of the metafilter, one user points out: “Often, a stakeholder who is not a doctor or advocate always has relevant first-hand experience with the problem in question and wants to share that experience by understanding that the experience is personal and that professional advice should be sought.” In a recent probate dispute, the Ontario Court of Appeal considered the concept of the “chair rule” in the interpretation of wills. “The guiding principle is that in order to interpret a will, the court must first consider its wording. Only if the court cannot determine the testator`s intent should it look beyond the will itself, in which case the chair rule applies. This principle is. as follows: If the testator`s will does not initially appear from the will itself, proof of such circumstances is necessarily permissible, since it must be presumed that the testator used the language of the will in view of the circumstances he knew at the time the will was drawn.
at least to the extent that it corresponds to the facts and circumstances set out in the will. Thus, modern case law shares the view that, in order to correctly interpret a will, one must first sit in the testator`s chair and read the entire will and the provisions that cause difficulties given the circumstances surrounding it. For example, in Haidl v. Sacher,[7] the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal took the position that the court should immediately sit in the testator`s chair, as Lord Denning suggested. The same goes for Laidlaw J.A. in Re Burke,[8] when he said: The answer to the above question is obviously not that at some point, when interpreting a will, the presiding judge can sit in the chair, lift his feet and “grow up.” The phrase “Sit in the testator`s chair” is not an invitation to relax. It is not thrown into the indicative mood, but is of a hortatory nature and therefore the sentence is poured into the imperative mood. In other words, he urges the judge to get to work. In the appeal, the Court first set out the guiding principles of the “chair rule”. She cited a legal commentary describing the “chair rule” as follows: The “chair rule” asks the court to put itself in the testator`s shoes when it has made its will, armed with the same knowledge it had, based on the available evidence.
An effective estate plan goes far beyond simply preparing a will. You should also consider obtaining other important legal instruments, including powers of attorney (for personal care and property), trusts (including Hansen trusts if you have disabled children or other dependents), as well as naming beneficiaries for life insurance policies, pensions, and other important documents. Thus, the court stated that, in applying the chair rule that replaces the testator, the court proceeds from the same knowledge that the testator had at the time of the drawing up of the will as to the nature and extent of his property, the composition of his family and his relations with his members. The Court of Appeal also said the same thing in Ross, because at paragraph 37 it cites the above-mentioned passage by Re Burke, who takes this view, as well as paragraph 41. However, the quotations from The Canadian law of Feeney`s wills referred to in paragraphs 38 and 39[16] suggest that the first step is still to read the questionable provisions to see if the court can find a clear meaning of them and should only resort to the armchair rule if it is not. With permission, this is a relic of the old strict construction approach and should be abandoned, as it can lead to interpretations that the testator did not intend to make, as in the case of Thorn mentioned above. [17] When a layperson offers legal advice online, they risk being sued if someone follows their advice and things don`t go as they hoped. When legal issues are discussed online, most people start their messages with “I`m not a lawyer” to protect themselves from a lawsuit. It`s best to contact a lawyer through their professionally designed website rather than through a discussion forum. It is very unlikely that you will get specific advice in a discussion forum, as lawyers know best. The appellant, Broad J.A., found that the references to paragraph 3(I)(iii) of paragraph 3(C) posed difficulties of interpretation that did not allow him to determine Sarah`s intent solely on the basis of the clear meaning of the wording used in the will (see paragraph 25,25(vii) of Broad J.A.`s Summary of Reasoning by the Court of Appeal). Broad J.
then applied the armchair rule. Based on the evidence of the circumstances that accompanied it and the wording of paragraph 3(C), particularly the italic passages, all of which indicated that Sarah wanted to keep the cottage in the family, Broad J. concluded that Sarah did not intend the beneficiaries of a deceased grandchild to participate in the cottage or the proceeds of its sale (para. 27). Thus, the procedure used by Broad J. appears to have first determined whether the provisions of the will were clear, and it was only when he realized that this was not the case that he turned to the chair rule. When a lawyer offers you free legal advice, they do so knowing that you could become their client. However, the advice they give before hiring someone as a client is different from the advice they give to paying clients. The Court of Appeal reviewed and approved Broad J.A.`s interpretation and methodology, including the fact that the applicant first concluded that the provisions of the will were unclear but created a patent inconsistency, and only then resorted to the chair rule (paragraphs 49 to 51). But the question remains, when should she sit in the testator`s chair and consider such evidence? In the past, the law required the court to first read the will and determine what the language used meant.
If this process resulted in a reasonable meaning, the interpretation would end, even though it was obvious that the testator intended to obtain a different result. Only if the initial trial did not reach a reasonable result was the court allowed to consider the circumstances that accompanied it.
