Law360 Canada ( September 4, 2018, 8:48 AM EDT) -- Appeal by the defendant from trial judgment finding that the deceased was domiciled in BC at the time of his marriage and that his 2011 will was thus revoked by operation of law and from the cost order against the appellant. The appellant was the deceased’s sister. The respondent was the deceased’s wife, who had challenged the validity of the will. The appellant argued that the judge erred by requiring that she prove the deceased had changed his previously stated intention to retire in Canada in order for her to establish that the deceased was not domiciled in BC at the relevant time. The deceased, a citizen of Japan, also acquired Canadian citizenship in 1975. The deceased lived abroad many years due to his employment. In 2009, he moved to Luxembourg. In 2011, the deceased executed his will which appointed the appellant as the executor of his estate and left the bulk of his estate to his two sisters equally. The deceased never returned to BC after his 2011 trip. In 2013, the deceased married the respondent. At the time, the deceased worked and resided in Luxembourg. He died in Japan in 2015. The judge found that a 2000 CRA tax residency determination form in which the deceased indicated that he intended to retire in Canada established that while he resided in the Cayman Islands, his domicile was still BC. The judge held that an intention to retire elsewhere defeated an intention to reside somewhere permanently, and that as a result the appellant bore the onus of establishing that the deceased’s intention to retire changed after he made this statement to the CRA. The judge concluded and that the appellant had not established that the deceased had the requisite intention to make Luxembourg his permanent home at the time he was married....