In Ontario, a person who seeks to challenge the validity of a will is required to meet a “minimum evidentiary threshold.” This threshold exists to prevent estates from becoming embroiled in years of expensive litigation over the thinnest of allegations. The minimum evidentiary threshold was recently addressed in Cissek v Laszlo, 2025 ONSC 7264 (“Cissek”).

In Cissek, the applicant sought to challenge the validity of the last will and testament of her late father (the “Will”). The Will bequeathed essentially the entirety of the deceased’s estate to the respondent (his wife of fifteen years). The applicant alleged, among other things, that the deceased lacked testamentary capacity to execute the Will; that there were suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will; and that the respondent had unduly influenced the deceased to execute the Will.

For the will challenge to proceed, the applicant was required to adduce some evidence which, if accepted, would call into question the validity of the Will. While this evidentiary threshold is generally low, bald or conclusory assertions of wrongdoing, bare allegations, and mere suspicions are not enough to meet the test. Moreover, the respondent (being the party propounding the Will) had the opportunity to answer the evidence put forward by the applicant. If the respondent successfully answered the applicant’s evidence, the will challenge would not be allowed to proceed.

In this case, the applicant did not meet the minimum evidentiary threshold to continue her will challenge. With respect to the allegation about lack of testamentary capacity, the applicant’s evidence was that the deceased was suffering from many serious health issues, was in great pain, and was taking medications to deal with his pain. However, there was no evidence that the deceased was confused, incoherent, or otherwise incapable. The Court specifically noted that the deceased’s multiple health issues (cancer, a stroke, a perforated bowel) were not enough, by themselves, to call his capacity into question. Moreover, while some medications have the potential to affect testamentary capacity, the applicant had not put forward any evidence to show that the specific medications taken by the deceased affected his testamentary capacity.

Meanwhile, the respondent put forward convincing evidence from several witnesses who described the deceased as being alert, coherent, aware, confident, and competent until he died. The Court found that the respondent’s evidence was a “complete answer” to the applicant’s claim regarding lack of testamentary capacity.

With respect to the allegations concerning suspicious circumstances and undue influence, the applicant’s evidence was that the deceased asked his neighbour and friend, Mr. Voros, to update his will. Mr. Voros, who was not a lawyer, initially declined. However, after the deceased persisted in his request, Mr. Voros drafted the Will based on information provided both by the deceased and the respondent. The Will was not shared with the applicant before her father died. Additionally, the Will was executed without a lawyer present.

While these facts on their own may have satisfied the minimum threshold for calling the validity of the Will into question, the Court found that the respondent’s evidence provided a “complete answer.” The respondent’s evidence was that the deceased wanted to update his will as soon as possible given his poor prognosis. The deceased made attempts to contact a lawyer, but those attempts were unsuccessful. The deceased and the respondent therefore reached out to Mr. Voros because he was fluent in both English and Hungarian (languages spoken by the deceased).

Further, the respondent adduced convincing evidence that the applicant was not close with her father (their relationship had been “severed” four or so years before his death). Meanwhile, the deceased was in a loving relationship with the respondent (his wife of 15 years). As such, there was a rational and understandable reason for the deceased to leave almost the entirety of his estate to the respondent.

There was also no evidence that the respondent exercised undue influence.  The deceased spoke with Mr. Voros about the contents of his Will twice the day before executing it, and again at length the following day. Moreover, the respondent was not present when the deceased executed his Will.

Given the above, the Court found that the applicant failed to meet the minimum evidentiary threshold. Her will challenge application was dismissed accordingly.

Cissek is an important reminder that Ontario courts will not automatically allow will challenges to proceed. The person challenging the will must adduce evidence which, if accepted, would call the validity of the will into question. Bald or conclusory assertions of wrongdoing, bare allegations without more, and mere suspicions will not be sufficient to satisfy the minimum evidentiary threshold.