Mar 11, 2026
In Smith v. Bechtel, 2026 ONSC 975, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered whether an unsigned draft will prepared by a lawyer could be treated as a valid will under s. 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act.
The case highlights an issue that sometimes arises when someone begins the process of making a will but dies before it is formally signed. The court was asked to decide whether the draft document should be treated as the deceased’s will, or whether the estate should instead be distributed according to Ontario’s intestacy rules.
Background
Timothy Bechtel died suddenly on September 30, 2024. He had never married, had no common law spouse, and had no children. He was survived by several siblings and the children of a predeceased brother. Importantly, Mr. Bechtel did not have an ongoing relationship with his siblings.
About two weeks before his death, Mr. Bechtel met with a lawyer to prepare a will and powers of attorney. The lawyer took handwritten notes during the meeting and later prepared draft documents reflecting those instructions. A letter enclosing the drafts was left for Mr. Bechtel to pick up, along with a request that he review the documents and advise the lawyer of any changes before a scheduled appointment to sign them.
Mr. Bechtel died twelve days later, before the documents could be reviewed or executed.
What Did Mr. Bechtel’s Draft Will Say?
The draft will set out a specific plan for how Mr. Bechtel’s estate should be distributed. It appointed the applicant, Tammy Lyn Smith, as estate trustee. Ms. Smith had previously worked as Mr. Bechtel’s office manager and remained a close friend after her employment ended.
The draft will also included several gifts to individuals and a charity, including:
- $75,000 to each of Mr. Bechtel’s three nephews
- $100,000 to a friend
- $50,000 to another friend
- $75,000 to the Arnprior Humane Society
- A riding lawn mower to a neighbour
After those gifts were paid, the remaining estate was to go to Ms. Smith. Notably, Mr. Bechtel’s siblings were not included as beneficiaries under the draft will.
What Would Happen to Mr. Bechtel’s Estate Without a Valid Will?
If a person dies without a valid will, their estate is distributed according to Ontario’s intestacy rules, which are set out in the Succession Law Reform Act. These rules determine who inherits based on a fixed order of family relationships.
Because Mr. Bechtel had no spouse and no children, his estate would be distributed to his next closest relatives, which in this case meant his surviving siblings and the children of his predeceased brother. In other words, if the draft will was not validated, the estate would pass to family members who were not beneficiaries under the draft will, rather than to the friends and charity named in that document.
This created the central legal question in the case: Should the court treat the draft will as Mr. Bechtel’s valid will, or should the estate be distributed according to the intestacy rules?
The Legal Context
Under the Succession Law Reform Act, a will is normally only valid if it meets certain formal requirements. Among other things, it must be signed by the testator in the presence of two witnesses, who must also sign the will.
The draft will in this case had not been signed or witnessed, so it did not meet those requirements.
However, s. 21.1 of the SLRA, which came into force in 2022, allows the court to validate a document that does not meet the formal requirements if the court is satisfied that the document sets out the testamentary intentions of the deceased. In other words, the court can treat a document as a valid will if it is satisfied that it reflects the deceased person’s final intentions for how their estate should be distributed.
Ms. Smith’s Evidence
The applicant, Ms. Smith, relied on several pieces of evidence to support the application.
- The lawyer who prepared the draft will testified that Mr. Bechtel attended their meeting alone, appeared to have capacity, and seemed clear about how he wanted to distribute his estate.
- The applicant also found a handwritten document in Mr. Bechtel’s home listing his assets and setting out general instructions about certain gifts, with the remainder of the estate going to the applicant.
- In addition, the applicant and a charity had been named as beneficiaries of certain insurance and investment assets.
While this evidence suggested that Mr. Bechtel intended certain people to benefit from his estate rather than his siblings, the court noted that expressions of intention alone are not enough to establish a valid will.
The Court’s Decision
The court ultimately concluded that the draft will could not be validated.
One of the key issues was that there was no evidence that Mr. Bechtel had reviewed the draft will prepared by his lawyer. The lawyer’s letter specifically asked Mr. Bechtel to review the document and advise of any changes or corrections, indicating that the document was still part of an ongoing drafting process.
The court also noted that the deadline for providing feedback on the draft had not yet passed when Mr. Bechtel died.
In addition, the handwritten list found in Mr. Bechtel’s home contained differences from the draft will, including different amounts and beneficiaries.
The court noted that people often reconsider their decisions while a will is being drafted. Because there was no evidence that Mr. Bechtel had reviewed or approved the draft, it was not possible to conclude that the document represented his final testamentary intentions.
For that reason, the court declined to validate the draft will under s. 21.1 of the SLRA. As a result, Mr. Bechtel’s estate would be distributed according to the intestacy rules.
Takeaways
Smith v. Bechtel illustrates the limits of the court’s power to validate documents that do not meet the formal requirements for a will.
Even though the evidence suggested that Mr. Bechtel had begun the process of creating a will and had discussed his wishes with a lawyer, the court was not satisfied that the draft document represented his final decision about how his estate should be distributed.
The case serves as a reminder that the process of preparing a will is not complete until the document is reviewed, finalized, and properly executed.
Diana Begaliyeva
Nothing contained in this post constitutes legal advice or establishes a solicitor-client relationship. If you have any questions regarding your legal rights or legal obligations, you should consult a lawyer.
Mar 11, 2026
A judgment has been awarded to you, but the money hasn’t arrived, yet. We’ve discussed the option of Garnishment in my previous blog. You probably have also heard of a Writ of Seizure and Sale, but how to start the process? Does it have to be filed at the Sheriff’s Office? Did you also accidentally call the York regional police for a sheriff? Oops! Fortunately, there is a new route to have a Writ issued electronically via WritFiling. We will walk you through both options.
Issuance Through the Registrar
A creditor can submit a Writ of Seizure and Sale (Form 60A) (“Writ”) to be issued with a Requisition form at the court registrar where the original proceeding commenced[1].
The Requisition form should detail the date and the amount of payment received, the amount owing, and the rate of post-judgement interest[2]. A copy of the Order should be attached to the Requisition form.
Once a Writ is issued, it may be filed with a Sheriff[3]. The Sheriff’s office is the Enforcement office of the Superior Court of Justice (NOT the police office!)
While the Writ should be issued where the Judgment was granted, it must be filed at the Enforcement office in the region where the debtor lives or owns assets. For example, if your judgment is issued in Toronto and the debtor lives in Richmond Hill. The Writ should be issued in Toronto, but the issued Writ is to be filed at the Sheriff’s Office in Newmarket court.
You may locate the Enforcement office through the following website: https://www.onwrits.ca/en/enforcement-offices/.
For Writ of Seizure and Sale of a property, the Writ should include a legal description of the real property, which can be found in the parcel register. Check out my previous blog: a walk through of the parcel register.
Issuance Through the WritFiling
During the Covid-19 pandemic, technology streamlined the process for legal professionals to issue and file Writs remotely[4].
An authorized user such as a lawyer or a paralegal[5] (for Form 20D: Writ of Seizure and Sale of Land only) may electronically issue the Writ through WritFiling, a product of Teranet software, instead of filing through registrar and enforcement office[6]. An electronically issued Writ is considered to have been both issued by the court and filed with the Sheriff[7].
To use this service, authorized users may submit an application and will receive a secure token. WritFiling has very detailed user guide on application and how to file and issue a Writ.
The filing process is very straightforward, and the issued Writ is designed to be clear and easy to understand. A service fee of $34.95 plus HST will be applied each time. Below is a sample of an electronically issued Writ of Seizure and Sale for your reference.
Whether you choose to file the Writ through the court registrar yourself or retain a lawyer to file through WritFiling, understanding the procedural nuances is the key to successfully enforcing the Judgment and collecting the debts. In my next blog, we will dive deeper into the next phase: how to direct the Sheriff to enforce your issued Writ.
Jennifer Jiang
Nothing contained in this post constitutes legal advice or establishes a solicitor-client relationship. If you have any questions regarding your legal rights or legal obligations, you should consult a lawyer.
[1] Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 194 [“Rules”], Rule 60.07(1).
[2] ibid
[3] Ibid at Rule 60.07 (5.1)
[4] “Teranet WritFling Solution Expands Services to Offer Convenience and Facilitate Collaboration.” Teranet, November 23, 2020, Online: <https://www.teranet.ca/insights/teranet-writfiling-solution-expands-services-to-offer-convenience-and-facilitate-collaboration/>
[5] Supra at Rule 60.07(0.1)
[6] Rules, Rule 60.07(1.1)
[7] Ibid at Rule 60.07(1.3); “How do I file/issue or file a writ?”, WritFiling, Online:<https://www.onwrits.ca/en/help-support/support/faq/issue-file-a-writ/how-do-i-file-issue-or-file-a-writ/>
Mar 5, 2026
In law school, we learn how to read a set of facts, find the legal issues, the applicable legal tests, and apply them to answer some hypothetical question.
What we do not learn, at least not in detail, is how to prepare for court in practical ways, aside from knowing the law. This is where the articling experience comes in.
So far, in my articling term at Casey & Moss LLP, I have been fortunate to attend, observe, and even speak in court. I was understandably nervous at first, but I came to appreciate that pre-court nerves are part of the process, and everyone experiences them in some way or another (or so I’ve been told…).
Setting aside the inevitable nerves, my in-court experiences have taught me practical lessons that extend beyond what is covered in law school lectures. I share a few of them below.
Lesson 1: You Need to Read the Practice Directions. Then Read Them Again.
Before you step into a courtroom, you need to have read and understood the practice directions for that specific court. In fact, before even getting to the court part, you need to ensure that your filed materials comply with the court’s filing requirements.
Thankfully for me, at Casey & Moss LLP, our lawyers are diligent about updating one another on interesting finds in the practice directions and drawing attention to any important changes or new discoveries in the filing requirements.
As an articling student, I’ve witnessed how staying on top of these changes translates into preparation for court: A lawyer who knows the law can make an argument, but a lawyer who knows the law and the practice directions can make sure to have that argument heard.
Lesson 2: If You Raise It, You Better Know Where It Is in Your Evidence
Observing courtroom advocacy taught me that every oral submission must be grounded in the evidence, and that counsel must know precisely where that evidence can be found.
This means knowing:
- The specific document in the evidentiary record that supports each part of your submission;
- The Case Center reference for where it can be located;
- The exact paragraph or page number you intend to direct the judge to; and
- What you are asking the court to take away from that particular passage.
That level of familiarity does not happen by accident. Hours of prep go into it.
But there is also something reassuring about watching experienced counsel field questions from judges in real time. When asked a difficult question, they do not panic. Often, they respectfully pause their submissions to acknowledge the question, clarify what is being asked if needed, and either provide the pinpoint to the answer or ask for a brief opportunity to retrieve it during a break.
As the articling student, this often means you were diligently taking notes of the judge’s questions and flipping through the record, locating the exact document or paragraph, and flagging it for supervising counsel before submissions resume.
To do this effectively, I have found it essential to:
- Read the pleadings and all materials before the court in advance. Reviewing them close enough to the hearing date to remain familiar with the details makes a significant difference in how well you can follow submissions and understand the issues as they unfold.
- Become comfortable not only with the evidence itself, but also with the platform that houses it. In matters before the Superior Court of Justice, that platform is Case Center, the court’s mandatory document-sharing system. Being able to navigate it quickly and confidently is a practical and meaningful way to support counsel during a hearing.
Lesson 3: What To Wear to Court
Courtroom wardrobe logistics are not discussed in law school.
Some attendances require robes. Others, such as case conferences, do not (but read the practice directions to be sure!).
For now, as an articling student, my uniform is usually a black blazer. No one expects me to appear in robes I do not yet have, so at this stage, I am thankfully spared the added stress of wondering whether my robes are at home or at the office, though I understand that day will come soon enough.
But even when robes are not required, the setting remains formal, so suit jackets and blazers are always a good option when in doubt.
Lesson 4: You Can’t Drink Coffee in Court!
One of the most devastating news I found out through experience rather than education was that you cannot drink coffee in court. Nor can you eat anything, or chew gum. But hey, at least you can drink water!
Preparation includes these practical considerations. Eat beforehand. Bring a snack for the break. If you plan to grab lunch nearby, make sure you leave enough time not only for the food to arrive and to eat, but also to debrief with counsel or take care of any last minute tasks during the recess. As a student, and even as counsel, breaks may often be spent researching, finding documents, or tracking down pinpoints, so having food handy is always a good idea.
There are also smaller details that matter, many of which I learned through guidance from helpful court staff:
- Your jacket should not be draped over the back of your chair, or lounging on top of a seat. Keep it on your lap or neatly tucked away behind your chair.
- If you are taking notes, make it clear that you are doing so for legitimate reasons. Recording a court proceeding is not permitted in any shape or format. If you are typing on a phone or tablet, it can easily be misunderstood. It is better to clarify at the outset to court staff, before the hearing commences, that you are taking notes to assist counsel and are authorized to do so, and for no other purpose.
Those are all my list of lessons learned for now!
If you have others that I missed, feel free to send me an email: fseddigh@caseyandmoss.com. I’ll take all the courtroom tips I can get.
Fara Seddigh
Nothing contained in this post constitutes legal advice or establishes a solicitor-client relationship. If you have any questions regarding your legal rights or legal obligations, you should consult a lawyer.
Feb 17, 2026
Hollywood has done it again. They’ve made a movie that makes you ask yourself, “is this just a movie, or is it a possible reality?”
In the movie “Mercy” a detective with the Los Angeles Police Department is put on trial before an AI Judge for the murder of his wife, Nicole. All the evidence points to Chris having killed his wife, so he is required to go before the AI Judge and make a case that will lower his probability of guilt to 92%. While on trial, the AI Judge gives Chris access to all available resources and information he may need to use as evidence to prove his innocence. He may ask the AI Judge for documents, police records/evidence, access to live and recorded camera/video footage, make phone calls to the police department, or anyone relevant to proving his innocence, and much more. He is given 90 minutes before the AI Judge to prove his innocence. Failure to do so will result in immediate execution.
The AI Judge in the movie is designed to be an objective, data-driven system free from human emotion and prejudice, operating within a program to ensure a 100% accuracy rate for conviction. However, the film also highlights how, (spoiler alert!), the system can make incorrect, life-or-death decisions.
There is no secret that technology is advancing and that AI is everywhere. With the progression of AI, the thought in my mind has always been whether my professional life/career would be impacted and, if so, how and how much. I always thought my career wouldn’t be impacted very much given the nature of my work. However, this movie opened my eyes to the likelihood that anything could be possible.
At the end of the day, this is a movie. But, what if one day it becomes reality?
Movie trailer: Mercy Official Trailer
Samantha Valvona
Nothing contained in this post constitutes legal advice or establishes a solicitor-client relationship. If you have any questions regarding your legal rights or legal obligations, you should consult a lawyer.
Jan 30, 2026
I’ve recently become a big fan of the British drama Downton Abbey which ran for six series (or ‘seasons’ for us North American folk) from 2010 to 2015, plus five Christmas specials and three feature films. The show centres around an aristocratic English family in the early 20th century who live in the fictional Yorkshire estate of Downton.
The premise of the first series is that Robert Crawley (the Earl of Grantham and the holder of the entail – or life tenancy – that consists of the Downton estate) and his wife have three daughters but no sons. The problem with the entail is that only male heirs could inherit. Thus, Robert’s eldest daughter Mary could never inherit the Downton estate. [Warning: series 3 and 4 spoilers ahead!]
Through a series of events, it was discovered that Robert’s distant cousin Matthew Crawley was the heir presumptive to the entail. Matthew would inherit the entail after Robert’s death and become the next Earl of Grantham. As TV dramas go, Mary and Matthew end up falling in love and marrying. Then, Robert falls into financial trouble and Matthew bails him out by purchasing half of Robert’s life interest in Downton. This gave Matthew control over Downton during Robert’s lifetime. When Robert died, Matthew would become the Earl of Grantham and inherit the whole entail.
Sadly, Matthew dies prematurely in a tragic car accident, with his widow Mary and newborn son George as his survivors. We learn that Matthew died without a will. (Side note, Matthew was a solicitor and didn’t make a will. Tsk.) Since he died intestate, his infant son inherited Matthew’s estate, which included the one-half ownership in Robert’s life interest of Downton.
Robert unilaterally decided that he should be the guardian of George’s share in Downton until he turned 18, probably so that he could take back full control of Downton. Mary objects to that plan and puts herself forward to be the guardian. Family tension! Drama!
It is later discovered that Matthew wrote a letter to Mary and put it in a book in his office just days before he died, which purported to leave his entire estate to her:
My darling Mary,
We are off to Duneagle in the morning and I have suddenly realised that I’ve never made a will or anything like one, which seems pretty feeble for a lawyer and you being pregnant makes it even more irresponsible. I’ll do it properly when I get back and tear this up before you ever see it, but I’ll feel easier that I’ve recorded on paper that I wish you to be my sole heiress. I cannot know if our baby is a boy or a girl but I do know it will be a baby. If anything happens to me before I’ve drawn up a will and so you must take charge. And now I shall sign this and get off home for dinner with you. What a lovely, lovely thought.
Matthew
[Author’s note: WHY would Matthew leave the letter in a book? WHY didn’t he give it to her or put it somewhere more conspicuous? This is pretty bad estate planning for a solicitor.]
The letter was witnessed by two of Matthew’s clients.
Gasp! Is this Matthew’s Last Will and Testament?
Robert’s lawyer investigates, and concludes that Matthew’s letter demonstrates testamentary intention and therefore is upheld as his Last Will and Testament. So, Mary owns half of the Downton estate while Robert’s alive! All’s well that ends well.
Now that I’ve given you a comprehensive play by play of the juicy drama, let’s apply it to modern-day Ontario law.
Intestate Succession
If Mary and Matthew were a married couple with a child in Ontario, would their child inherit the entirety of Matthew’s estate if he died without a will?
Short answer: No. Intestate succession is governed by the Succession Law Reform Act. It provides that where the testator was survived by a spouse and one child, the spouse is entitled to the preferential share of the estate, which is currently prescribed by legislation as $300,000. After payment of the preferential share, the residue of the estate is split into two parts, one for each of the spouse and the child.
For illustrative purposes, let’s say Matthew’s estate was worth $500,000. Mary would get the first $300,000, and the remaining $200,000 would be split equally between Mary and George. Mary would end up with $400,000, and George would get $100,000.
Guardianship of Property of Minors
If George were a baby in Ontario and suddenly inherited money from his deceased father’s estate, could his grandfather Robert or mother Mary simply assume the role as the guardian of George’s property?
Short answer: No. Neither Mary nor Robert can simply assume the role as guardian of George’s property. Assuming that Matthew died intestate, George’s inheritance would have to be paid to the Accountant of the Superior Court of Justice to be held in trust and managed on his behalf until he turned 18 years old. The alternative is for Robert or Mary to apply for guardianship of George’s property under the Children’s Law Reform Act. If guardianship were granted, they would be responsible for managing George’s property pursuant to a court-approved management plan until he turns 18 years old.
Formalities of a Will
Is Matthew’s letter a valid will under Ontario laws?
Short answer: Likely yes. The Succession Law Reform Act requires that wills be in writing, signed by the testator at its end, and witnessed by two witnesses. Testators can also make a holograph will by writing the whole will in his own handwriting and signature, without the requirement of witnessing signatures.
Assuming that there was no dispute that Matthew handwrote the letter and signed it at the end, and since he stated his testamentary intention to dispose of his property by bequeathing his estate to Mary, the letter would likely be upheld as a valid holograph will. The two witness signatures are nice to have but not required, since the letter was written wholly in Matthew’s handwriting.
I have yet to finish the entire show so please no spoilers for series 5, 6, or the films!
Zara Wong
Nothing contained in this post constitutes legal advice or establishes a solicitor-client relationship. If you have any questions regarding your legal rights or legal obligations, you should consult a lawyer.
