Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Refuses Settlement Rescission Without Will Proof

• The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has reaffirmed its duty to prove a will in solemn form before considering rescission of a settlement agreement.
• This decision was made in the case of Wiebe v Dopko, where five siblings were disputing their mother's estate over a holographic will that favored one sibling over his others.
• The court's decision highlights the importance of proving a will in solemn form before considering rescission of a settlement agreement and has significant implications for lawyers advising on estate administration.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has reaffirmed its duty to prove a will in solemn form before considering rescission of a settlement agreement, potentially delaying asset distribution and increasing costs for parties involved.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has reaffirmed its duty to prove a will in solemn form before considering rescission of a settlement agreement, potentially delaying asset distribution and increasing costs for parties involved. This decision was made in the case of Wiebe v Dopko, 2026 SKCA 82, where five siblings were disputing their mother's estate. The dispute arose after one sibling discovered what appeared to be their mother's holographic will, which favored him over his siblings. The court's decision has significant implications for lawyers advising on estate administration, as it highlights the importance of proving a will in solemn form before considering rescission of a settlement agreement.

The case of Wiebe v Dopko is not an isolated incident. In recent years, there have been several estate law decisions from Canada's appeal courts that highlight the complexities and nuances of will proof in solemn form. For example, in a July 3 decision, the Alberta Court of Appeal denied an appeal brought by the estate's current personal representative, who wanted the estate's prior personal representatives to disclose certain estate-related documents that a chambers judge had considered privileged. Similarly, in a Feb. 3 decision, a three-justice panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal refused to reconstitute itself as the Divisional Court to address an application for leave to appeal from a Superior Court order interpreting s. 21.1 of Ontario's Succession Law Reform Act, 1990.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal's decision in Wiebe v Dopko has significant practical implications for estate administration. By reaffirming its duty to prove a will in solemn form, the court is essentially saying that asset distribution should be delayed until the validity of the will is established. This can lead to increased costs and complexity for parties involved, as they may need to engage in additional litigation to resolve the dispute. Lawyers advising on estate administration should be aware of this decision and take steps to ensure that their clients are prepared for the potential delays and costs associated with proving a will in solemn form.

Lawyers advising on estate administration should be aware that the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has reaffirmed its duty to prove a will in solemn form before considering rescission of a settlement agreement, potentially delaying asset distribution and increasing costs for parties involved.

Source: Original reporting via Trial to prove will should precede ruling on whether to rescind settlement: Sask. appeal court