Law360 Canada ( April 30, 2026, 9:49 AM EDT) -- Appeal by appellants (Bryan and Amadai) from a judgment dismissing their application challenging the validity of a May 19, 2022, will (the Fourth Will) said to be executed by the deceased, Reka, and from a costs order requiring each party to bear their own costs. Acting on an earlier will, Bryan applied for a certificate of appointment and collected a life insurance payout. Chandra, one of Reka’s children, objected, asserted that the Fourth Will was valid, and commenced a competing application and a Small Claims Court action (SCC Action) seeking repayment of the insurance funds. The appellants brought their own application disputing the validity of the Fourth Will on the basis of suspicious circumstances, forgery, conflict of interest, lack of knowledge and approval, undue influence, and unconscionable procurement. They argued that Naqvi, the solicitor who drafted the Fourth Will, had an undisclosed conflict because he rented space from and received referrals through Chandra’s husband, that handwritten signature evidence showed the signature was not Reka’s, that Naqvi relied on erroneous instructions inconsistent with the factual timeline, and that Reka’s vulnerability, family conflict, and the radical departure from prior wills indicated undue influence. Chandra maintained that Reka had capacity, that she did not influence the process, and that no suspicious circumstances displaced the presumption of validity. The issues were whether the judge erred in finding no suspicious circumstances, in rejecting the forgery evidence, in finding no conflict of interest, in concluding no unconscionable procurement or undue influence, in permitting amendment of pleadings in the SCC Action, and in ordering each party to bear their own costs....