Mind Your Ps And Qs – And Your Commas
Kentros v. Kentros, 2026 ONCA 546, is a recent decision “reflect[ing]” what the court described as the “ongoing uncertainty in Ontario law regarding rectification after a will has been probated.” My colleague, Albert Oosterhoff (who is cited in the decision seven times), has indeed commented within. I’m going to talk about something else from the case that caught my attention: commas and the mischief they can cause.
The deceased in Kentros was survived by her husband, Manthos, and their two children, Aleka and Konstantinos. She left a Will with these residuary clauses:
- The rest and residue of my estate shall be conveyed to my spouse, MANTHOS KENTROS to be his absolutely.
- In the event my spouse, MANTHOS KENTROS, should not survive me for a period of thirty days, then the rest and residue of my estate to the children of my daughter, ALEKA KENTROS, and my son, KONSTANTINOS KENTROS, also known as DINO KENTROS, in equal shares, to share and share alike, to be theirs absolutely, subject to the infant trust provisions hereinbefore contained. [Emphasis original.]
Manthos survived the deceased by more than 30 days. This rendered paragraph 4 inoperative and avoided a fight about its construction. There might have been such a fight otherwise, because that paragraph could be interpreted to leave the residue of the deceased’s estate to:
- Aleka’s children and Konstantinos;
- Aleka’s children and Konstantinos’s children;
- Aleka’s children, Aleka, and Konstantinos; or
- the children of Aleka and Konstantinos (though this would, among other things, raise a serious public policy issue).
The court, in passing, noted only the first two of these competing interpretations, but regardless of the number, ambiguity like this is best avoided. It invites discord (and a call to LawPRO if you’re the drafting solicitor) and risks depletion of estate assets if the discord spills into litigation.
Happily, ambiguity like this can be avoided with careful punctuation, indented lists, list markers, precise wording, or a combination of them. These tools could have been used to achieve any of the legally acceptable outcomes listed above while avoiding the ambiguity of the original drafting:
| Outcome |
Rewrite |
| To Aleka’s children and Konstantinos |
4. In the event my spouse, MANTHOS KENTROS, should not survive me for a period of thirty days, then the rest and residue of my estate to the children of my daughter, ALEKA KENTROS, and to my son, KONSTANTINOS KENTROS, also known as DINO KENTROS, in equal shares, to share and share alike, to be theirs absolutely, subject to the infant trust provisions hereinbefore contained.
–or–
4. In the event my spouse, MANTHOS KENTROS, should not survive me for a period of thirty days, then the rest and residue of my estate to (a) the children of my daughter, ALEKA KENTROS,; and (b) my son, KONSTANTINOS KENTROS, also known as DINO KENTROS, in equal shares, to share and share alike, to be theirs absolutely, subject to the infant trust provisions hereinbefore contained.
–or–
4. In the event my spouse, MANTHOS KENTROS, should not survive me for a period of thirty days, then the rest and residue of my estate to:
(a) the children of my daughter, ALEKA KENTROS,; and
(b) my son, KONSTANTINOS KENTROS, also known as DINO KENTROS,
in equal shares, to share and share alike, to be theirs absolutely, subject to the infant trust provisions hereinbefore contained. |
| To Aleka’s children and Konstantinos’s children |
4. In the event my spouse, MANTHOS KENTROS, should not survive me for a period of thirty days, then the rest and residue of my estate to the children of (a) my daughter, ALEKA KENTROS,; and (b) my son, KONSTANTINOS KENTROS, also known as DINO KENTROS, in equal shares, to share and share alike, to be theirs absolutely, subject to the infant trust provisions hereinbefore contained.
–or–
4. In the event my spouse, MANTHOS KENTROS, should not survive me for a period of thirty days, then the rest and residue of my estate to the children of my daughter, ALEKA KENTROS, and my son, KONSTANTINOS KENTROS, also known as DINO KENTROS, my grandchildren in equal shares, to share and share alike, to be theirs absolutely, subject to the infant trust provisions hereinbefore contained. |
| To Aleka’s children, Aleka, and Konstantinos |
4. In the event my spouse, MANTHOS KENTROS, should not survive me for a period of thirty days, then the rest and residue of my estate to (a) the children of my daughter,; (b) ALEKA KENTROS,; and (c) my son, KONSTANTINOS KENTROS, also known as DINO KENTROS, in equal shares, to share and share alike, to be theirs absolutely, subject to the infant trust provisions hereinbefore contained.
–or–
4. In the event my spouse, MANTHOS KENTROS, should not survive me for a period of thirty days, then the rest and residue of my estate to:
(a) the children of my daughter,;
(b) ALEKA KENTROS,; and
(c) my son, KONSTANTINOS KENTROS, also known as DINO KENTROS,
in equal shares, to share and share alike, to be theirs absolutely, subject to the infant trust provisions hereinbefore contained. |
Drafting techniques like these go a long way toward avoiding confusion in all manner of legal documents—contracts, trust deeds, powers of attorney, and so on. So, while grammar snobs might make poor dinner dates, they’re at least good to have on retainer.
Written by: David Postel
Posted on: September 22, 2026
Categories: Commentary, WEL Newsletter, Wills
Kentros v. Kentros, 2026 ONCA 546, is a recent decision “reflect[ing]” what the court described as the “ongoing uncertainty in Ontario law regarding rectification after a will has been probated.” My colleague, Albert Oosterhoff (who is cited in the decision seven times), has indeed commented within. I’m going to talk about something else from the case that caught my attention: commas and the mischief they can cause.
The deceased in Kentros was survived by her husband, Manthos, and their two children, Aleka and Konstantinos. She left a Will with these residuary clauses:
Manthos survived the deceased by more than 30 days. This rendered paragraph 4 inoperative and avoided a fight about its construction. There might have been such a fight otherwise, because that paragraph could be interpreted to leave the residue of the deceased’s estate to:
The court, in passing, noted only the first two of these competing interpretations, but regardless of the number, ambiguity like this is best avoided. It invites discord (and a call to LawPRO if you’re the drafting solicitor) and risks depletion of estate assets if the discord spills into litigation.
Happily, ambiguity like this can be avoided with careful punctuation, indented lists, list markers, precise wording, or a combination of them. These tools could have been used to achieve any of the legally acceptable outcomes listed above while avoiding the ambiguity of the original drafting:
–or–
4. In the event my spouse, MANTHOS KENTROS, should not survive me for a period of thirty days, then the rest and residue of my estate to (a) the children of my daughter, ALEKA KENTROS,; and (b) my son, KONSTANTINOS KENTROS, also known as DINO KENTROS, in equal shares, to share and share alike, to be theirs absolutely, subject to the infant trust provisions hereinbefore contained.
–or–
4. In the event my spouse, MANTHOS KENTROS, should not survive me for a period of thirty days, then the rest and residue of my estate to:
(a) the children of my daughter, ALEKA KENTROS,; and
(b) my son, KONSTANTINOS KENTROS, also known as DINO KENTROS,
in equal shares, to share and share alike, to be theirs absolutely, subject to the infant trust provisions hereinbefore contained.
–or–
4. In the event my spouse, MANTHOS KENTROS, should not survive me for a period of thirty days, then the rest and residue of my estate to the children of my daughter, ALEKA KENTROS, and my son, KONSTANTINOS KENTROS, also known as DINO KENTROS, my grandchildren in equal shares, to share and share alike, to be theirs absolutely, subject to the infant trust provisions hereinbefore contained.
–or–
4. In the event my spouse, MANTHOS KENTROS, should not survive me for a period of thirty days, then the rest and residue of my estate to:
(a) the children of my daughter,;
(b) ALEKA KENTROS,; and
(c) my son, KONSTANTINOS KENTROS, also known as DINO KENTROS,
in equal shares, to share and share alike, to be theirs absolutely, subject to the infant trust provisions hereinbefore contained.
Drafting techniques like these go a long way toward avoiding confusion in all manner of legal documents—contracts, trust deeds, powers of attorney, and so on. So, while grammar snobs might make poor dinner dates, they’re at least good to have on retainer.
Author