Yes. Changes to a will can sometimes be valid even if they were not properly signed, but a court will generally require clear and convincing evidence that the changes reflect the true intentions of the deceased.
The law places a strong emphasis on the formalities of will signing. Proper signing requires specific steps, certain witnesses, and signatures and initials in all the right places. Following these signing rules helps avoid uncertainty. Still, there is a competing concern. A failure to strictly comply with the signing rules should not defeat a person’s genuine intentions where those intentions can be reliably established.
How Courts Deal with Changes to a Will
When a will contains handwritten changes, deletions, or additions that were not properly signed or witnessed, the starting point is that those changes are not valid.
However, Manitoba law allows the court to step in and “cure” these deficiencies. To do so, the court must be satisfied that:
- The document reflects the deceased’s deliberate intentions;
- The changes were meant to alter the will, not merely notations of potential changes or ideas; and
- There is strong supporting evidence confirming those intentions.
The evidentiary burden is high. Courts are cautious, and for good reason. Informal alterations can be ambiguous, and the risk of misunderstanding—or even manipulation—is real.
Case Example: Yaremchuk v. Yaremchuk
The decision in Yaremchuk v. Yaremchuk provides a detailed look at how this process works.
In that case, a will originally executed in proper form had been altered over time. Names were crossed out, others added, and even the date of the will appeared to have been changed. None of these revisions were initialed or formally witnessed.
What complicates matters further is that many of the changes were not made by the will-maker himself, but by his spouse.
On its face, this raises immediate concerns. If someone other than the will-maker changes the will, the question becomes whether those changes truly reflect the will-maker’s intentions or something else entirely.
Read more about the case here: Yaremchuk v. Yaremchuk ((1998), 218 A.R. 153 (QB)) – vLex Canada
The Central Question: Intention
The court’s task was not to determine whether the formal requirements had been met—they clearly had not. Instead, the focus shifted to intention.
Did these alterations represent a fixed and final expression of the will-maker’s wishes?
To answer that, the court relied heavily on extrinsic evidence. This included affidavit evidence from individuals who had no financial stake in the estate and who described conversations with the deceased about his intentions.
That evidence suggested a consistent narrative. The will-maker intended to exclude one branch of the family and leave his estate to others who had been more involved in his life and affairs.
There is something slightly uncomfortable about relying on recollections of conversations, especially when those conversations cannot be tested directly. Yet in the absence of formal compliance, courts often have little choice but to reconstruct intention indirectly.
Why the Court Accepted the Changes
Despite the irregularities, the court validated the altered will.
The court considered several factors in its decision including that:
- The document was clearly intended to function as a will;
- It was signed by the will-maker;
- The alterations aligned with consistent, independent evidence of his intentions; and
- The witnesses providing that evidence had no financial interest in the outcome.
Interestingly, the court accepted that the changes could be valid even though they were made by someone else and without clear evidence of when the will-maker re-signed the document.
The decision reflects a willingness of the court to prioritize substance over form, but only where the evidence is strong enough to support it.
What This Means for Estate Planning
The lesson is straightforward. Informal changes to a will are risky.
Crossing out names, adding beneficiaries, or modifying key terms without following the proper signing process can create uncertainty that may only be resolved through court proceedings. That process is time-consuming, costly, and inherently uncertain.
Had the evidence of intentions been less glaring, the changes may not have been approved. In that case, the original will would stand.
A Note on Family Dynamics
The changes to the will in this case effectively excluded one beneficiary, apparently based on a perceived lack of contact or involvement.
Situations like this are not uncommon. Relationships shift over time, and estate plans sometimes follow. However, when those changes are made informally, they are more likely to be challenged. In that sense, the legal issue and the relationship dynamics among the beneficiaries are closely intertwined.
Final Thoughts
The decision reflects a careful balancing act by the court. On one hand, the law insists on formalities to protect against uncertainty and abuse. On the other, it recognizes that rigid adherence to those formalities should not override a person’s genuine intentions where those intentions can be clearly proven.
The difficulty, of course, lies in proving them.