In Re Pregent Estate[1], 2025 ONSC 7208 (“Pregent”), the court considered whether an Ontario court could recognise and give effect to a Last Will and Testament executed in Quebec that was later amended by a holograph codicil executed in Ontario.

Background:

On April 12, 1973, Roberta Pregent (the “Deceased”) executed her Last Will and Testament (the “Quebec Will”) in Pointe-Claire, Quebec, while residing in Pierrefonds, Quebec.[2] The Deceased later executed a codicil on February 10, 1998 (the “Codicil“), which was attached to the Quebec Will and confirmed to be in her handwriting.

Although the location of the Codicil’s execution was not specified, the Court inferred that it was executed in Ontario based on the Deceased’s long-term residency there. The Deceased’s estate consisted entirely of personal property.[3]

Jurisdiction

The Court noted there was no case law directly addressing “the amendment of a Quebec will by an Ontario codicil”.[4] It then turned to the Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26 (“SLRA”), particularly 36(1)-(2), 38, and 39.

Section 36(2) of the SLRA provides that the manner, formalities, essential validity, and effect of a will as it relates to movables is governed by the internal law of the place where the testator was domiciled at death.[5] Section 38 confirms that a change of domicile after execution does not invalidate a will as to its manner and formalities or alter its construction.[6] Section 39 preserves the option to rely on the law of the place of domicile at the time of making for purposes of construction. [7]

Relying on these sections of the SLRA, the Court asserted that Ontario had jurisdiction to recognise and give effect to the Quebec Will as revised by the subsequent Codicil executed in Ontario. The Court held that Ontario had jurisdiction to recognise and give effect to the Quebec Will as revised by a subsequent Codicil made in Ontario. The Court’s approach was consistent with Grillo Estate v. Grillo (“Grillo Estate”), where section 36(2) of the SLRA supported Ontario’s jurisdiction to validate a holograph will executed abroad by a deceased domiciled in Ontario, intended to supersede an earlier Ontario will.

Domicile and the SLRA Framework

The Court centered its analysis on section 36(2) of the SLRA and focused on the Deceased’s domicile. The court cited McCallum v Ryan Estate, where Justice Sedgwick described domicile as the person’s “permanent home,” noting that a domicile of choice requires both an actual move and an intention to remain indefinitely.[8]

In Pregent, the Deceased and her late husband had lived in Ontario for over 35 years, operated cottage rentals in the Gananoque area, owned and resided in homes in the Kingston area, and, during the last six years of her life, she resided in Kingston. The Court found it clear that the Deceased was domiciled in Ontario at the time of death.[9]

 Validity of the Will and Codicil

The Court found no indication that the Quebec Will failed to comply with Quebec law and, by virtue of section 36(2) of the SLRA. The court concluded that its formalities also appeared to conform to Ontario law. On this basis, the Court deemed the Quebec Will valid.[10]

Regarding the Codicil, which was the handwritten note from 1998, the Court presumed it was executed in Ontario. On this basis, while applying Ontario law (as the law of the Deceased’s domicile at death and the place of execution), the Court found that the Codicil met the requirements of a holograph will under Ontario law. [11]

The Court adopted an approach consistent with the Grillo Estate, recognizing the Quebec Will as revised by the Codicil executed in Ontario, within Ontario’s jurisdictional framework under section 36(2) of the SLRA.[12]

Having determined that both the Quebec Will and the Handwritten Codicil were valid under Ontario law, the Court granted the application and directed that a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee be issued.[13]

Concluding remarks

Where a will executed in one jurisdiction is later amended by a codicil executed in Ontario, Ontario courts may recognise and give effect to the combined testamentary scheme if the deceased was domiciled in Ontario at death and the instruments satisfy Ontario’s formal requirements, including those for holograph wills.

—

[1] Re Pregent Estate, 2025 ONSC 7208

[2] Ibid at para 2

[3] Ibid at para 4

[4] Ibid at para 5

[5] Ibid at para 5

[6] Ibid at para 5

[7] Ibid at para 5

[8] Ibid at para 6

[9] Ibid at para 7

[10] Ibid at para 9

[11] Ibid at para 10

[12] Ibid at para 13

[13] Ibid at para 5