These estate cases usually rely on what's referred to as "hearsay" evidence or statements generally made outside of the courtroom. This article provides an overview of what hearsay evidence is, how it affects estate litigation, and how this rule can vary from province to province.
Hearsay evidence encompasses written and oral statements made by someone outside of their courtroom testimony. Such statements are generally inadmissible as evidence or proof for assertions made in court. In R. v. Khelawon, the Court defined Hearsay to include:
There are numerous reasons why hearsay evidence can't be used as evidence. This includes:
However, the inadmissibility of hearsay evidence is only the general rule. There are numerous exceptions to hearsay evidence's inadmissibility, such as:
There are many more exceptions, and each exception has its own exceptions and allowabilities. This generally depends on the affiliated common law, provincial statutes, and more.
Many estate litigation cases are a game of "he said, she said". For example, in Mak (Estate) v. Mak, various trial portions depended on one party's credibility. One of the four brothers fighting for their late mother's estate claimed that his mother wanted to leave a more significant portion of the estate to him. However, the Court found there was a lack of credibility with his statements and dismissed his hearsay evidence.
Often, hearsay evidence in estate litigation files is allowed due to the exception of business records, spontaneous exclamations, declaration of bodily and mental conditions, and declarations by the deceased. However, the other exceptions can also come into play.
The admissibility of the deceased's statements turns on the statement's reliability and notes the credibility of the witness giving the evidence of the deceased declarant's statements. This was the situation in Mak (Estate) v. Mak. Whether the witness is credible ultimately relies on what the judge believes.
We see significant use of hearsay evidence when a beneficiary claims that the deceased provided them with a gratuitous gift. However, the estate may argue that the beneficiary was holding the asset as a resulting trust for the deceased's estate. Again, this was an issue in Mak (Estate) v. Mak.
Canada and each province have their own evidence acts. The provincial evidence acts often state how hearsay evidence may be admissible in their courts, beyond what's displayed by common law. For example, section 13 of the Ontario's Evidence Act states:
In an action by or against the heirs, next of kin, executors, administrators or assigns of a deceased person, an opposite or interested party shall not obtain a verdict, judgment or decision on his or her own evidence in respect of any matter occurring before the death of the deceased person, unless some other material evidence corroborates such evidence.
In summary, Ontario estate cases allow hearsay evidence in cases where there is corroboration. According to Pepe et al. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, corroborative evidence is evidence that's "from a source extraneous to the witness whose evidence is to be corroborated, that is relevant to a material fact in issue and that tends to show that the witness whose evidence needs corroboration is telling the truth."
Estate litigation, like estate administration and other parts of the estate process, is complicated. But Estateably is here to make the estate administration portion easier for lawyers and legal teams.
Our cloud-based solution allows estate and trust professionals to automate court forms and precedents and save your business time and money. Book a free demo today.