Will disputes often begin with a simple question: did the deceased truly understand and approve the document they signed?
In many cases, courts can resolve estate disputes through affidavit evidence and summary procedures. However, where important facts are genuinely disputed, a full trial may be necessary. The Alberta Court of King's Bench recently addressed this issue in Kendall Estate (Re), 2026 ABKB 325, a decision that highlights the role of suspicious circumstances, testamentary capacity, and conflicting evidence in contested wills.
The Background
William Kendall passed away in 2019, leaving five children.
Shortly before his death, he signed a new will that significantly altered his previous estate plan. The 2019 will left 50% of the estate to one daughter, Katherine, while the remaining 50% was divided among the other four children. Earlier wills had divided the estate far more evenly among the siblings.
The 2019 will also appointed Katherine as sole executor, replacing the multiple executors named in earlier wills.
Another notable feature of the case was that the will was prepared using a will kit rather than through a lawyer, despite the fact that the earlier wills had been professionally drafted.
At the same time, Katherine advanced a claim under a caregiving agreement that allegedly entitled her to compensation for caring for her father during his final years.
Both the will and the caregiving agreement became the subject of challenge.
What Are Suspicious Circumstances?
One of the most important concepts in will litigation is the idea of "suspicious circumstances."
Suspicious circumstances do not automatically make a will invalid. Instead, they create concerns that require closer scrutiny.
Common examples may include:
- Significant changes from prior wills.
- Questions about a testator's mental capacity.
- Involvement of a major beneficiary in preparing the will.
- Potential undue influence by a family member.
- Unusual distributions that depart from previous intentions.
In Kendall Estate, several of these factors were present.
The will represented a significant departure from previous estate plans. It was prepared by a beneficiary who was also the largest recipient under the new will. Capacity concerns were raised. The caregiving arrangement added another layer of complexity.
Taken together, these issues created enough uncertainty that the Court was unwilling to determine the matter summarily.
Conflicting Evidence Created a Problem
A major reason the Court directed the matter to trial was the existence of conflicting evidence on important factual issues.
For example, the witnesses to the will gave different accounts regarding whether the will had been read over to the deceased before signing.
There was also disagreement concerning the deceased's cognitive functioning.
Several witnesses described changes in his ability to participate in a complex card game that he had played previously. Some believed his abilities had noticeably deteriorated, while others disagreed.
Expert evidence was also brought forward that raised concerns about his mental capacity at the time the will was executed.
Because the evidence pointed in different directions, the Court could not confidently resolve the dispute through a summary process.
Not Every Will Challenge Requires a Preliminary Hearing
One interesting aspect of the case involved an argument that there needed to be a separate preliminary proceeding before the Court could decide whether a full trial was required.
The Court rejected this position.
The Court explained that the principles established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Vout v. Hay concern burdens of proof rather than mandatory procedural steps.
In other words, while suspicious circumstances can affect who bears the burden of proving a will's validity, they do not automatically require a separate preliminary hearing before the dispute proceeds to trial.
The Court concluded that it could move directly toward formal proof of the will where appropriate.
Capacity and the Alberta Evidence Act
The decision also provides useful guidance regarding section 11 of the Alberta Evidence Act.
Parties often assume that evidence concerning communications or events involving a deceased person is automatically inadmissible.
That is not correct.
The Court confirmed that section 11 generally affects the weight of evidence rather than its admissibility. Interested parties can still give evidence regarding events that occurred before death. However, a court will typically require some form of corroboration before relying on that evidence to decide a case.
That corroboration may come from documents, third-party witnesses, surrounding circumstances, or reasonable inferences arising from the evidence as a whole.
Why the Court Ordered a Trial
The Court emphasized that modern litigation principles encourage efficient dispute resolution wherever possible.
Not every estate dispute requires a trial.
However, the central question is whether the available record allows the Court to fairly determine the issues.
In Kendall Estate, the Court concluded that the conflicting evidence prevented it from making the findings necessary to determine the validity of the will on a summary basis.
Rather than add another procedural layer, the Court determined that moving directly to trial would be the most efficient way to resolve all outstanding issues.
The Caregiving Contract Will Be Heard at the Same Time
Another practical aspect of the decision was the Court's treatment of the caregiving agreement.
Rather than require separate proceedings, the Court held that the caregiving claim could be heard together with the will challenge.
This approach promotes judicial efficiency by ensuring that related disputes involving the same estate are resolved in a single proceeding whenever possible.
For families involved in estate litigation, this can reduce costs, avoid duplication of evidence, and speed up final resolution.
Practical Lessons for Alberta Families
The decision offers several important lessons:
Major Changes to a Will Often Attract Scrutiny
A significant departure from previous estate plans may lead family members to question capacity, knowledge, and approval.
Will Kits Require Care
While homemade and will-kit wills can be valid, they may face greater scrutiny when disputes arise, particularly where a beneficiary is involved in their preparation.
Capacity Evidence Matters
Medical records, witness observations, and expert opinions can play a critical role in will challenges.
Conflicting Evidence May Require a Trial
Where material facts are genuinely disputed, courts may conclude that only a full trial can fairly determine the issues.
Related Estate Disputes May Be Combined
Claims involving caregiving agreements, compensation arrangements, or related estate issues may be heard together with a will challenge.
The Bottom Line
Kendall Estate (Re) serves as an important reminder that not every estate dispute can be resolved through affidavit evidence alone. When significant changes to a will are paired with questions about capacity, beneficiary involvement, or conflicting witness accounts, courts may require a full trial to determine the deceased's true intentions.
The decision also highlights the importance of careful estate planning, independent legal advice, and thorough documentation when major changes are made to testamentary documents.
MerGen Law is Here to Help You
At MerGen Law, we assist clients throughout Alberta with will challenges, formal proof of wills, executor disputes, capacity concerns, undue influence claims, and estate litigation. Early legal advice can help families understand their rights and navigate complex estate disputes more effectively.
This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Individuals facing concerns about estate litigation trials should seek professional advice tailored to their specific circumstances.