The decision in Farhat v. Majed,[1] concerned the validity of a Holograph Will and the subsequent administration of the Deceased’s estate.

Farhat involved the Estate of Itaf Karim (the “Deceased”) who passed away on June 25, 2024. The Deceased was predeceased by her husband, Hassan (the “Applicant”) and her seven children, including Rana (the “Respondent”). [2]

The Deceased executed a purported holograph will (the “Purported Holograph Will”) that was handwritten by the Deceased in Arabic. The Purported Holograph Will was not dated but signed by her with the words, “Mother of Mohamed” and “Itaf”. The court noted that “Itaf” was added to the Purported Holograph Will following the Deceased’s passing, and prior to being submitted to the court.[3]

The court determined that the alleged signature “Itaf” was not the Deceased’s authentic signature. Nonetheless, the court found that the Deceased’s Purported Holograph Will remained valid since the Deceased’s second signature, “Mother of Mohamed” was deemed authentic. The court was satisfied that the Deceased often signed other documents and letters to her family containing the same signature, “Mother of Mohamed”.[4]

The Deceased’s Estate consisted mainly of jewelry, gold and $67,000 in a credit union account. According to the Purported Holograph Will, it was to be distributed as follows:

[3] As for my possessions in the bank, the gold which was given to me as a gift from my sweetheart Imane is to be returned to her, and the rest to be distributed equally among my four daughters. As for the money, once received by Rana, she should distribute them among everyone.

 As for the diamond set here, it will be for my beloved Rana.[5]

The Respondent, Rana, sought a “Certificate of Administration” pursuant to the Purported Holograph Will, which was granted by the court on January 15, 2025.[6]

Shortly after, a note dated May 27, 2025, was discovered in the Deceased’s safety deposit box, placed there just before the Deceased began on a pilgrimage to Mecca. The court determined that this note reflected the Deceased’s testamentary intentions, and was therefore, her Last Will and Testament. It provided the following:

[5] With regard to my possessions in the bank, the gold which was given to me as a gift from my sweetheart Imane is to be returned to her, and the rest to be distributed equally among my four daughters; with the exception my diamond set which will go to Rana.[7]

The Applicant brought an Application seeking to invalidate the Purported Holograph Will and annul the Certificate of Administration, arguing that the Purported Holograph Will was not a true reflection of the Deceased’s testamentary intentions.[8]

The court determined that the Purported Holograph Will found in the Deceased’s drawer was merely a draft and did not adequately establish the Deceased’s testamentary intention. The court stated the following:

“[the] circumstance, the words used, and the signature satisfy me that it reflects the deceased’s testamentary intentions and was her will”.[9]

As a result, the court determined that the Certificate of Administration granted pursuant to the Purported Holograph Will was given in error as the court did not have access to the Deceased’s note dated May 27, 2025 (the “Last Will and Testament”).

Pursuant to the Deceased’s Last Will and Testament, the residue of the Deceased’s Estate passed to the Applicant by way of intestacy.[10]

The court ordered that the Certificate of Administration issued on January 15, 2025, was revoked and was to be returned to the court. The court ordered that a new Certificate of Administration was to be issued to the Respondent.[11]

Lastly, the court ordered that the Respondent shall pass her accounts and both parties were entitled to full indemnity costs from the Deceased’s Estate.

—

[1] Farhat v. Majed, 2025 ONSC 5152 (CanLII)

[2] Ibid at para 1

[3] Ibid at para 3

[4] Ibid at para 4

[5] Ibid at para 5

[6] Ibid at para 6

[7] Ibid at para 5

[8] Ibid at para 1

[9] Ibid at para 6

[10] Ibid at para 8

[11] Ibid at para 9