This issue was recently considered by the Court in Re Pregent Estate, 2025 ONSC 7208 (CanLII).

Roberta Anne Pregent died on February 8, 2024 in Kingston, Ontario. She left a last will and testament dated April 12, 1973, executed in Quebec, where she resided at the time.

The will attached a handwritten “amendment” dated February 10, 1998, “to reflect the present situation”, signed in Ontario.

Ms. Pregent’s daughter applied to the court for a certificate of appointment of estate trustee. The estate consisted entirely of personal property.

As a result of the “amendment”, the court reviewed its jurisdiction to consider an amendment to a will made in Quebec, by a codicil made in Ontario. While there was no direct case on point, the following sections of the Succession Law Reform Act (“SLRA”) applied:

36 (1) The manner and formalities of making a will, and its essential validity and effect, so far as it relates to an interest in land, are governed by the internal law of the place where the land is situated.

(2) Subject to other provisions of this Part, the manner and formalities of making a will, and its essential validity and effect, so far as it relates to an interest in movables, are governed by the internal law of the place where the testator was domiciled at the time of his or her death.

38 A change of domicile of the testator occurring after a will is made does not render it invalid as regards the manner and formalities of its making or alter its construction.

39  Nothing in sections 34 to 42 precludes resort to the law of the place where the testator was domiciled at the time of making a will in aid of its construction as regards an interest in land or an interest in movables.

The court went on to consider the concept of domicile under the SLRA, which caselaw has defined as something that can be acquired by choice if a person moves to another jurisdiction and intends to remain there indefinitely.

In the present case, Ms. Pregent and her late husband had lived in Ontario for over 35 years before their respective deaths, owing businesses and homes in the province. Ms. Pregent also lived in Ontario during the last six years of her life. The court was therefore satisfied that Ms. Pregent was domiciled in Ontario when she died.

There was nothing to suggest that the Quebec will was not made in accordance with Quebec law. Having regard to s.36(2) of the SLRA, the will also appeared to have been made in conformity with Ontario law.  The holograph was presumed to have been made in Ontario, and confirmed with the requirements of a holographic will under Ontario law.

The court therefore found that the will and the holograph codicil were both valid under Ontario law, being the law of Ms. Pregent’s domicile at the time of her death. The application was therefore granted.