Luen-Wen Chang passed away on June 20, 2024 (the “Deceased” or “Estate”). The Deceased was survived by three siblings, namely, Robert Chang (the “Applicant”), Oh-Wen Chang, and Alice Chiu, along with his daughter, Sherrie Quinn.[1]
The Applicant sought the Court’s directions with regard to whether an unsigned, undated handwritten document (the “Document”) met the validity requirements pursuant to section 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26 (“SLRA”).[2] The salient term of the Document provided that the Applicant shall receive the residue of the Estate.[3] Should the Document be invalid pursuant to section 21.1 of the SLRA, the Deceased would die intestate, and Sherrie, as the Deceased’s surviving issue (pursuant to section 47(1) of the SLRA) would be entitled to inherit the Deceased’s Estate.[4]
The Circumstances Surrounding the Execution of the Document
In or around June 2024, the Applicant learned that the Deceased was terminally ill. On or about June 19, 2024, when the Applicant arrived at the hospital the Deceased asked him for something to write on. In doing so, on the back of the Applicant’s car rental receipt the Deceased wrote the following which was not signed:[5]
“Will
by Luen-Wen Chang (of 68 N Heights Rd, Toronto)
to Robert Taiwen Chang of Dallas, Texas
——————
all my belongings go to Robert Chang
including:
1 house, at North Heights Rd, for 1.2m to 1.5m
1 car, for 4K
bank acct:
-
- Simplii Financial, about 6K
- EQ Bank acct $550 (580K)
- [“R” or “P”] Financial about $330K
- [illegible] Financial, about $230K 200K”
Later the same day, the Applicant returned to the hospital with a notepad from a hotel on which the Deceased wrote the following (the “Note”):
“Tomorrow (Thursday) 11 AM
Dr. Halliday. You. me. Three people talk.
-
- power of attorney
- long term care
- palliative care
I have lung cancer (cure or therapy)
So painful, hurting, hard to live
I’m very tired, very exhausted,
Very easy to get tired.
Appetite no good”
The Applicant was told to keep the Document and to “be fair” in regard to how his property was to be handled.[6] The Applicant died the following day.[7]
Is the Document a Valid Holographic Will?
Pursuant to section 6 of the SLRA, “a testator may make a valid will wholly by his or her own handwriting and signature, without formality, and with the presence, attestation or signature of a witness”. Further, section 7(1) of the SLRA provides that such signature be “apparent on the face of the will”. Due to the Document not being signed, it was not a valid holographic will.
Is the Document valid pursuant to Section 21.1 of the SLRA?
Section 21.1 provides the following:
If the Superior Court of Justice is satisfied that a document or writing that was not properly executed or made under this Act sets out the testamentary intentions of a deceased or an intention of a deceased to revoke, alter or revive a will of the deceased, the Court may, on application, order that the document or writing is as valid and fully effective as the will of the deceased, or as the revocation, alteration or revival of the will of the deceased, as if it had been properly executed or made.
Despite Sherrie providing her consent to the validity of the Document, the Court highlighted its inquisitorial role in ensuring that Document meets the requirements of section 21.1. As the Ontario Court of Appeal held in Hejno v. Hejno, 2025 ONCA 876, “ Courts must ensure that documents validated under s. 21.1 of the SLRA truly express the testator’s wishes, and the lack of opposition did not remove the need to decide the application according to the law and the evidence”.[8] Therefore, the Court must be satisfied (a) that the Document is authentic and (b) that the Document represents the Deceased’s fixed and final intention in regard to the disposal of his property.[9]
Is the Document Authentic?
Importantly, the Court concluded that just because the Document was not signed, did not necessarily mean that it was not authentic.[10] To the contrary, the Court found that the Document was consistent with the circumstances in which it was created, that is, the Deceased urged the Applicant to travel to his bed side at the hospital so he could give the Applicant his will.[11]
Further, the Court found that despite the Document being undated, that it was written on the back of a car rental receipt that was dated June 18, 2024. The Court found that the Document could only have been written between this date and the early morning of June 20, 2024, when the Deceased died.[12]
Additionally, the Document contained information that only the Deceased would have knowledge of, such as his accounts with various banks and their respective approximate values. This information was corroborated by the appointed Estate Trustee During Litigation.[13]
Lastly, the Court found that the Applicant witnessed the Deceased execute the Document and held that section 12(1) of the SLRA did not render the bequest to the Applicant void in these circumstances. The Court clarified that acceptance of the Applicant’s evidence of him witnessing the Deceased write the Document went to the issue of authenticity, not the attestation of the Deceased’s execution of the Document.[14] If the Document did in fact come within section 12(1) of the SLRA, the Court found that section 12(3) of the SLRA would further shield the bequest made to the Applicant from being found void.[15]
Does the Document represent the Deceased’s Fixed and Final Intentions?
The Court began by noting that in the circumstances an unsigned Document raised red flags. In considering the overall context in which the Document was created, the Court noted the following:
- The Deceased was in pain and nearing death;[16]
- The Note did not mention the need to create a will because he likely already thought he had;[17]
- The Deceased did not expect another opportunity to execute a will given his condition;[18]
- The Document was marked as “Will” indicating the Deceased intention that it be his last will and testament;[19]
- The Deceased identified the Applicant as the testator in the Document;[20] and
- The Deceased was certain about the distribution of the Estate by stating “all my belongings go to Robert Chang”.[21]
In doing so, the Court concluded that the Document represented the fixed and final intentions of the Deceased.
Conclusion and Takeaways:
Despite not being signed by the Deceased, the Document was found to be authentic and represent the Deceased’s fixed and final intentions. As such, the Document written on the back of a car rental receipt was held to be the valid last will and testament of the Deceased pursuant to section 21.1 of the SLRA.
—
[1] Chang v. Chang, 2026 ONSC 4842 (CanLII), at para 1.
[2] Ibid at para 2.
[3] Ibid at para 3.
[4] Ibid at para 3.
[5] Ibid at para 11.
[6] Ibid at para 14.
[7] Ibid at para 15.
[8] Hejno v. Hejno, 2025 ONCA 876 at para. 17
[9] At para 33.
[10] Ibid at para 34, see also: George v. Daily (1997), 1997 CanLII 17825 (MB CA), 143 D.L.R. (4th) 273 (Man. C.A.), at pp. 282-4; Allan v. Thunder Bay Regional, 2024 ONSC 3260, 96 E.T.R. (4th) 258, at para. 13.
[11] Ibid at para 35.
[12] Ibid at para 36.
[13] Ibid at para 38.
[14] Ibid at para 39 & 40
[15] Ibid at para 41.
[16] Ibid at para 45 & 51.
[17] Ibid at para 46.
[18] Ibid at para 47.
[19] Ibid at para 48.
[20] Ibid at para 49.
[21] Ibid at para 50.
Written by: Jessica Homer
Posted on: September 23, 2026
Categories: Commentary, Wills
Luen-Wen Chang passed away on June 20, 2024 (the “Deceased” or “Estate”). The Deceased was survived by three siblings, namely, Robert Chang (the “Applicant”), Oh-Wen Chang, and Alice Chiu, along with his daughter, Sherrie Quinn.[1]
The Applicant sought the Court’s directions with regard to whether an unsigned, undated handwritten document (the “Document”) met the validity requirements pursuant to section 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26 (“SLRA”).[2] The salient term of the Document provided that the Applicant shall receive the residue of the Estate.[3] Should the Document be invalid pursuant to section 21.1 of the SLRA, the Deceased would die intestate, and Sherrie, as the Deceased’s surviving issue (pursuant to section 47(1) of the SLRA) would be entitled to inherit the Deceased’s Estate.[4]
The Circumstances Surrounding the Execution of the Document
In or around June 2024, the Applicant learned that the Deceased was terminally ill. On or about June 19, 2024, when the Applicant arrived at the hospital the Deceased asked him for something to write on. In doing so, on the back of the Applicant’s car rental receipt the Deceased wrote the following which was not signed:[5]
“Will
by Luen-Wen Chang (of 68 N Heights Rd, Toronto)
to Robert Taiwen Chang of Dallas, Texas
——————
all my belongings go to Robert Chang
including:
1 house, at North Heights Rd, for 1.2m to 1.5m
1 car, for 4K
bank acct:
Later the same day, the Applicant returned to the hospital with a notepad from a hotel on which the Deceased wrote the following (the “Note”):
“Tomorrow (Thursday) 11 AM
Dr. Halliday. You. me. Three people talk.
I have lung cancer (cure or therapy)
So painful, hurting, hard to live
I’m very tired, very exhausted,
Very easy to get tired.
Appetite no good”
The Applicant was told to keep the Document and to “be fair” in regard to how his property was to be handled.[6] The Applicant died the following day.[7]
Is the Document a Valid Holographic Will?
Pursuant to section 6 of the SLRA, “a testator may make a valid will wholly by his or her own handwriting and signature, without formality, and with the presence, attestation or signature of a witness”. Further, section 7(1) of the SLRA provides that such signature be “apparent on the face of the will”. Due to the Document not being signed, it was not a valid holographic will.
Is the Document valid pursuant to Section 21.1 of the SLRA?
Section 21.1 provides the following:
If the Superior Court of Justice is satisfied that a document or writing that was not properly executed or made under this Act sets out the testamentary intentions of a deceased or an intention of a deceased to revoke, alter or revive a will of the deceased, the Court may, on application, order that the document or writing is as valid and fully effective as the will of the deceased, or as the revocation, alteration or revival of the will of the deceased, as if it had been properly executed or made.
Despite Sherrie providing her consent to the validity of the Document, the Court highlighted its inquisitorial role in ensuring that Document meets the requirements of section 21.1. As the Ontario Court of Appeal held in Hejno v. Hejno, 2025 ONCA 876, “ Courts must ensure that documents validated under s. 21.1 of the SLRA truly express the testator’s wishes, and the lack of opposition did not remove the need to decide the application according to the law and the evidence”.[8] Therefore, the Court must be satisfied (a) that the Document is authentic and (b) that the Document represents the Deceased’s fixed and final intention in regard to the disposal of his property.[9]
Is the Document Authentic?
Importantly, the Court concluded that just because the Document was not signed, did not necessarily mean that it was not authentic.[10] To the contrary, the Court found that the Document was consistent with the circumstances in which it was created, that is, the Deceased urged the Applicant to travel to his bed side at the hospital so he could give the Applicant his will.[11]
Further, the Court found that despite the Document being undated, that it was written on the back of a car rental receipt that was dated June 18, 2024. The Court found that the Document could only have been written between this date and the early morning of June 20, 2024, when the Deceased died.[12]
Additionally, the Document contained information that only the Deceased would have knowledge of, such as his accounts with various banks and their respective approximate values. This information was corroborated by the appointed Estate Trustee During Litigation.[13]
Lastly, the Court found that the Applicant witnessed the Deceased execute the Document and held that section 12(1) of the SLRA did not render the bequest to the Applicant void in these circumstances. The Court clarified that acceptance of the Applicant’s evidence of him witnessing the Deceased write the Document went to the issue of authenticity, not the attestation of the Deceased’s execution of the Document.[14] If the Document did in fact come within section 12(1) of the SLRA, the Court found that section 12(3) of the SLRA would further shield the bequest made to the Applicant from being found void.[15]
Does the Document represent the Deceased’s Fixed and Final Intentions?
The Court began by noting that in the circumstances an unsigned Document raised red flags. In considering the overall context in which the Document was created, the Court noted the following:
In doing so, the Court concluded that the Document represented the fixed and final intentions of the Deceased.
Conclusion and Takeaways:
Despite not being signed by the Deceased, the Document was found to be authentic and represent the Deceased’s fixed and final intentions. As such, the Document written on the back of a car rental receipt was held to be the valid last will and testament of the Deceased pursuant to section 21.1 of the SLRA.
—
[1] Chang v. Chang, 2026 ONSC 4842 (CanLII), at para 1.
[2] Ibid at para 2.
[3] Ibid at para 3.
[4] Ibid at para 3.
[5] Ibid at para 11.
[6] Ibid at para 14.
[7] Ibid at para 15.
[8] Hejno v. Hejno, 2025 ONCA 876 at para. 17
[9] At para 33.
[10] Ibid at para 34, see also: George v. Daily (1997), 1997 CanLII 17825 (MB CA), 143 D.L.R. (4th) 273 (Man. C.A.), at pp. 282-4; Allan v. Thunder Bay Regional, 2024 ONSC 3260, 96 E.T.R. (4th) 258, at para. 13.
[11] Ibid at para 35.
[12] Ibid at para 36.
[13] Ibid at para 38.
[14] Ibid at para 39 & 40
[15] Ibid at para 41.
[16] Ibid at para 45 & 51.
[17] Ibid at para 46.
[18] Ibid at para 47.
[19] Ibid at para 48.
[20] Ibid at para 49.
[21] Ibid at para 50.
Author