- Succession de Charpentier, 2022: The Court of Appeal outlined three cardinal principles for testamentary interpretation:
- Testamentary interpretation follows the same rules as contractual interpretation, subject to minor adaptations.
- The goal is to give effect to the testator’s intention at the time the will was made.
- Interpretive rules apply only when the testament contains ambiguity.
- Paradis c. Succession de Paradis, 2023: The Court of Appeal reinforced that ambiguity in testamentary language—reflected in conflicting interpretations—warrants a contextual analysis of the entire will to uncover the testator’s true intent.
- Métivier c. Parent, 1933: The Supreme Court held testamentary interpretation must begin with the literal meaning of the words, and only when the testator’s intent is ambiguous may the court depart from that plain meaning
Justice Samson concluded that the 2015 will was ambiguous. While it contained a general clause revoking all prior wills, it also included a specific provision restricting its application to assets located in the United States. That provision stated:
“I direct that this Last Will and Testament be directed to my assets in the United States. Any and all assets in any other country shall be dispersed in accordance with documents drafted in those countries.”
Justice Samson noted that this provision was a “disposition d’ordre particulier”—a specific provision that overrides the general revocation clause. To support this interpretive approach, the judgment refers to the 5th edition of Droits des successions by Beaulne & Morin, which affirms that when conflicting provisions arise, a specific clause prevails over a general one.
This doctrinal guidance supported the conclusion that the specific territorial limitation clause in the 2015 will prevailed over the general revocation clause.
Finally, the judgment referenced Bégin v. Bilodeau, where the Supreme Court affirmed that two wills may coexist if they govern distinct assets and do not conflict. A general revocation clause does not necessarily nullify a prior will if the testator intended both to operate in parallel. Based on this principle, Justice Samson concluded that the 2015 will revoked earlier dispositions only for assets located in the United States, while the 2013 Quebec will remained valid for assets situated in Quebec.
Justice Samson held that the 2015 American will was valid and effective for assets located in the United States, and that the 2013 Quebec will remained operative for assets located in Quebec.
The decision illustrates the importance of precise drafting in cross-border estate planning and reaffirms that courts will interpret testamentary documents in a way that preserves the testator’s intent, even when general revocation language is present.
Allen Madelin Avocats: Leaders in Succession and Estate Law
For more than a decade, Allen Madelin Avocats has been a trusted name in succession law, estate disputes, family law, and civil litigation. Our lawyers are dedicated to protecting the last wishes of the deceased and the rights of heirs with precision and determination.
Allen Madelin Avocats offer consultations both in person and via videoconference. The first consultation is offered for $125.For more information, please contact us by telephone: 1 514 904 4017 or by e-mail: [email protected].
Initial consultation: $125
Phone: 514-904-4017
Email: [email protected]
