Peterborough's Law Firm Since 1974

Ontario’s Will validation rules are meant to prevent unfair outcomes where a person clearly intended a document to be their final Will, but the signing formalities weren’t perfect. However, there are limits — especially when the only “Will” is an unsigned draft that exists as a digital document only. A recent Ontario case, Madhani v. Fast, 2025 ONSC 4100, is a reminder that an unsigned electronic draft generally cannot be validated under Ontario law. The common scenario: lawyer takes instructions to draft a Will for Client lawyer prepares draft Will a signing appointment is booked the client dies before the Will is signed Will was not printed out - it exists in digital form only In Madhani , the draft Will was never printed and never executed. The draft existed only as an electronic file. Can the Court “validate” the draft anyway? Ontario’s validating provision is found at Section 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act (“ SLRA ”). Section 21.1 allows the Court to validate a document that does not comply with execution formalities provided it reflects the deceased’s testamentary intentions. In Madhani , the Court held Section 21.1 cannot be used to validate a Will that exists only in electronic form. Why not? Another piece of Ontario legislation, the Electronic Commerce Act, 2000 (“ ECA ”) explicitly limits the Court’s validating power. Section 31 of the ECA excludes Wills from electronic recognition. Section 21.1(2) of the SLRA explicitly makes Will validation subject to the exclusion under Section 31 of the ECA. In short: Ontario law still requires a physical testamentary document for validation to even be possible. Testamentary intention still matters Nevermind the “electronic draft” problem, which is significant on its own. There must also be evidence before the Court that supports that the digital draft was a valid reflection of the deceased Client’s fixed and final intention. Did the Client read the final draft? Did the Client sign the final draft? What evidence can be produced that shows what was drafted is an accurate reflection of the Client's "fixed and final intention"? Ontario courts often use the “deliberate, fixed and final intention” test drawn from George v. Daily, 1997 CanLII 17825 (MB CA). In Madhani , the draft Will was to be reviewed and confirmed at the signing meeting — only the signing meeting never happened – which means no evidence could be produced to decide whether the draft Will reflected the deceased Client’s fixed and final intention. The Court was not reasonably satisfied in Madhani . How this differs from other validation cases Ontario courts have validated Wills with execution defects where the document was physical and clearly authentic, for example: Cruz v. Public Guardian and Trustee , 2023 ONSC 3629 Vojska v. Ostrowski , 2023 ONSC 3894 But those cases involved paper documents that were physically present and clearly connected to the deceased’s fixed and final intention. Practical takeaways The Madhani case is a caution for both lawyers and families: print important drafts (especially when a signing meeting is imminent) try to obtain direct confirmation from the client (not only through intermediaries) digital drafts on devices may not be legally usable as Wills in Ontario Bottom line Madhani confirms that Ontario’s Will validation paradigm under Section 21.1 SLRA is helpful — but it is not a workaround for electronic-only drafts. Until legislation changes, a Will must exist in physical form before Ontario’s courts can consider validating the unsigned draft under SLRA s. 21.1.