In exercising his discretion under the Rules, the Chambers judge had to consider whether the committee acted prudently under the Patients Property Act , especially s.18 thereof. The Chambers judge applied the proper test and committed no error in the exercise of his discretion. 400 Price v. Price Appeal dismissed for reasons given by trial judge. The trial judge erred in law by excluding relevant and potentially critical evidence relating to the issues of testamentary capacity and undue influence. BCCA 195 Estate of Shnippman v. Shippman Variation made in proportion of future taxes to be the responsibility of estate beneficiaries because of contingencies affecting future payment and fact that payment will only accrue, probably many years into the future.
Critical question is whether the instrument is dispositive.
The learned judge did not err in holding there are cases in which it is legally correct to read words into an instrument obviously intended to be a testamentary disposition. Appellant's costs to be paid out of estate. Wieler et al.