William Robert Boyle passed away on March 7, 2025 (the “Deceased” or “Estate”). The Deceased was predeceased by 9 of his 16 siblings. On or about March 15, 2010, the Deceased executed a last will and testament (the “Will”) which distributed the residue of the Estate as follows:[1]
“To pay to Dennis Martineau the son of my common law spouse fifteen (15) percent
To pay to Van Martineau the son of my common law spouse ten (10) percent
To pay to my brother Watson Boyle fifteen (15) per cent
To pay to me (sic) niece Christine Boyle fifteen (15) per cent.
To pay to my sister Elizabeth Boyle ten (10) per cent
To pay to my sister Deborah Pentcoste ten (10) per cent
To pay to my niece Susan Boyle, to my niece Ivy Boyle, to my niece Vickie Boyle, to my niece Carole Boyle and to my nephew Leslie Boyle five (5) per cent each.”
The Will excluded the Deceased’s surviving sisters, namely: Virginia Boyle, Ella Boyle, Sharon Boyle Dee and Fay Boyle Peters.[2] Further, the Will excluded children of the Deceased’s predeceased siblings, his nieces and nephews.
Between October 2022 and May 2024, various notations were made on the Will which in large part exhibited strikethroughs to the residue clause therein.[3]
As depicted, some of these strikethroughs had corresponding initials and dates, some did not. The Court stated that if the notations were found to be valid, the Deceased would die partially intestate, this is because the strikethroughs served to invalidate the entirety of the residue clause in the Will.[4]
Are the Notations Valid?
Pursuant to Section 18 of the Succession Law Reform Act[5] (the “SLRA”) any alternations made to a will after it has been executed must be “made in accordance with the provisions of this Part governing making of the will”. According to section 18(2) of the SLRA, the alternations must meet the requirements that govern the validity of the will in question. In this case, the Will had to meet the requirements pursuant to sections 4 and 7 of the SLRA and be signed and witnessed.[6]
Notably, the Deceased initialed the notations which the Court distinguished from ‘signatures’ and outlined that the notations were not witnessed. As such, the Court found that the notations were not valid alterations to the Will.
Validity Pursuant to Section 21.1 of the SLRA
For the notations to be valid pursuant to the curative provision, section 21.1 of the SLRA, they must be (1) authentic and (2) represent the fixed and final intentions of the Deceased.[7]
The Court found that the notations placed on the Will were authentic. In doing so, the Court considered the initials accompanying the notations and the fact that there was no challenge to their authenticity.[8]
The Court played an inquisitorial role in determining whether the notations represented the Deceased fixed and final intentions.[9] However, the Court concluded that the notations did not represent such an intention, in doing so, it noted that the notations had the effect of creating a partial intestacy.
Importantly, there was no evidence that the Deceased was aware of how an intestacy would impact the distribution of the residue of his Estate, i.e. the Estate would be distributed equally to his siblings (and in the instances where his siblings predeceased him, their own children).[10]
Additionally, beneficiaries that the Deceased specifically made provision for in the Will, (i.e. the Deceased’s common law spouse’s children, the Deceased’s nieces and nephews whose parents ultimately survived the Deceased) would not be entitled under an intestate distribution. Rather, 4 siblings and 13 nieces and nephews not named in the Will would be entitled to receive a distribution of the Estate who were not provided for in the Will.[11] The Court concluded that this could not have been the intention of the Deceased.
The Court went further to consider the interim notations made to the Will at their respective points in time. However, this analysis did not lead the Court to conclude any differently as a significant portion of the residue would remain unaccounted for.[12]
Therefore, the Court concluded that the notations did not represent the Deceased’s fixed and final intention. Lastly, it was stated that the handwritten notations did not impair an accurate reading of the residue clause in the Will and had no basis to invalidate it.[13]
Takeaways:
The court reaffirmed that strikethroughs cannot upend a formally executed estate plan where the residue-altering notations were neither signed nor witnessed as required, they failed as formal alterations, and they also failed under the SLRA’s curative power. While authentic, they did not reflect the Deceased’s fixed and final intentions, especially given the unintended partial intestacy they would trigger, and the omission of beneficiaries expressly named in the Will.
—
[1] Boyle v. Boyle, 2026 ONSC 4919 (CanLII) at para 1 & 10.
[2] Ibid at para 12.
[3] Ibid at para 14.
[4] Ibid at paras 15 & 20.
[5] R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26.
[6] Boyle at paras 23-25.
[7] Ibid at para 31 (see also: Madhani v. Fast, 2025 ONSC 4100 at para 33-38).
[8] Ibid at para 32.
[9] Ibid at para 34.
[10] Ibid at para 36.
[11] Ibid at para 36 & 37.
[12] Ibid at para 38.
[13] Ibid at para 42.
Written by: Jessica Homer
Posted on: September 17, 2026
Categories: Commentary, Wills
William Robert Boyle passed away on March 7, 2025 (the “Deceased” or “Estate”). The Deceased was predeceased by 9 of his 16 siblings. On or about March 15, 2010, the Deceased executed a last will and testament (the “Will”) which distributed the residue of the Estate as follows:[1]
“To pay to Dennis Martineau the son of my common law spouse fifteen (15) percent
To pay to Van Martineau the son of my common law spouse ten (10) percent
To pay to my brother Watson Boyle fifteen (15) per cent
To pay to me (sic) niece Christine Boyle fifteen (15) per cent.
To pay to my sister Elizabeth Boyle ten (10) per cent
To pay to my sister Deborah Pentcoste ten (10) per cent
To pay to my niece Susan Boyle, to my niece Ivy Boyle, to my niece Vickie Boyle, to my niece Carole Boyle and to my nephew Leslie Boyle five (5) per cent each.”
The Will excluded the Deceased’s surviving sisters, namely: Virginia Boyle, Ella Boyle, Sharon Boyle Dee and Fay Boyle Peters.[2] Further, the Will excluded children of the Deceased’s predeceased siblings, his nieces and nephews.
Between October 2022 and May 2024, various notations were made on the Will which in large part exhibited strikethroughs to the residue clause therein.[3]
As depicted, some of these strikethroughs had corresponding initials and dates, some did not. The Court stated that if the notations were found to be valid, the Deceased would die partially intestate, this is because the strikethroughs served to invalidate the entirety of the residue clause in the Will.[4]
Are the Notations Valid?
Pursuant to Section 18 of the Succession Law Reform Act[5] (the “SLRA”) any alternations made to a will after it has been executed must be “made in accordance with the provisions of this Part governing making of the will”. According to section 18(2) of the SLRA, the alternations must meet the requirements that govern the validity of the will in question. In this case, the Will had to meet the requirements pursuant to sections 4 and 7 of the SLRA and be signed and witnessed.[6]
Notably, the Deceased initialed the notations which the Court distinguished from ‘signatures’ and outlined that the notations were not witnessed. As such, the Court found that the notations were not valid alterations to the Will.
Validity Pursuant to Section 21.1 of the SLRA
For the notations to be valid pursuant to the curative provision, section 21.1 of the SLRA, they must be (1) authentic and (2) represent the fixed and final intentions of the Deceased.[7]
The Court found that the notations placed on the Will were authentic. In doing so, the Court considered the initials accompanying the notations and the fact that there was no challenge to their authenticity.[8]
The Court played an inquisitorial role in determining whether the notations represented the Deceased fixed and final intentions.[9] However, the Court concluded that the notations did not represent such an intention, in doing so, it noted that the notations had the effect of creating a partial intestacy.
Importantly, there was no evidence that the Deceased was aware of how an intestacy would impact the distribution of the residue of his Estate, i.e. the Estate would be distributed equally to his siblings (and in the instances where his siblings predeceased him, their own children).[10]
Additionally, beneficiaries that the Deceased specifically made provision for in the Will, (i.e. the Deceased’s common law spouse’s children, the Deceased’s nieces and nephews whose parents ultimately survived the Deceased) would not be entitled under an intestate distribution. Rather, 4 siblings and 13 nieces and nephews not named in the Will would be entitled to receive a distribution of the Estate who were not provided for in the Will.[11] The Court concluded that this could not have been the intention of the Deceased.
The Court went further to consider the interim notations made to the Will at their respective points in time. However, this analysis did not lead the Court to conclude any differently as a significant portion of the residue would remain unaccounted for.[12]
Therefore, the Court concluded that the notations did not represent the Deceased’s fixed and final intention. Lastly, it was stated that the handwritten notations did not impair an accurate reading of the residue clause in the Will and had no basis to invalidate it.[13]
Takeaways:
The court reaffirmed that strikethroughs cannot upend a formally executed estate plan where the residue-altering notations were neither signed nor witnessed as required, they failed as formal alterations, and they also failed under the SLRA’s curative power. While authentic, they did not reflect the Deceased’s fixed and final intentions, especially given the unintended partial intestacy they would trigger, and the omission of beneficiaries expressly named in the Will.
—
[1] Boyle v. Boyle, 2026 ONSC 4919 (CanLII) at para 1 & 10.
[2] Ibid at para 12.
[3] Ibid at para 14.
[4] Ibid at paras 15 & 20.
[5] R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26.
[6] Boyle at paras 23-25.
[7] Ibid at para 31 (see also: Madhani v. Fast, 2025 ONSC 4100 at para 33-38).
[8] Ibid at para 32.
[9] Ibid at para 34.
[10] Ibid at para 36.
[11] Ibid at para 36 & 37.
[12] Ibid at para 38.
[13] Ibid at para 42.
Author