The “armchair rule” is a guiding principle in will interpretation that permits courts to step into the shoes of the testator, considering their perspective and circumstances when drafting the will. This approach was central to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s decision in Landry v. Christiansen-Hassett, 2024 ONSC 2509, where the interpretation of a contentious clause revealed the rule’s nuances and application.
What is the Armchair Rule?
The armchair rule enables courts to ascertain a testator’s intent by examining the will in its entirety and in the context of the testator’s relationships, assets, and life circumstances at the time of its drafting. The court assumes the testator’s position, equipped with their knowledge of family dynamics, financial situation, and desired legacies. This rule is particularly important when a will contains ambiguities, such as unclear directives or the use of imprecise language.
The case of Landry v. Christiansen-Hassett highlighted the armchair rule’s utility. The dispute centered on whether the wording of Gary Landry’s will created a binding trust or merely expressed a non-enforceable moral obligation. Specifically, Landry’s will granted his common-law spouse, Kelly Christiansen-Hassett, their family home for her “sole and only use absolutely,” while also stating it was his “wish” that if the home were sold, 20% of the proceeds would go to his residual beneficiaries, including his daughter, parents, and sister. The court was tasked with determining whether the “wish” carried binding legal weight.
Applying the Rule in Landry v. Christiansen-Hassett
In interpreting Landry’s will, the court relied heavily on the armchair rule. It analyzed both the language of the document and the broader context of Landry’s life and priorities.
The court first considered the will’s wording. The clause granting Kelly the home was unambiguously directive, using the phrase “sole and only use absolutely.” In contrast, the 20% provision relied on precatory (non-binding) language, stating it was Landry’s “wish.” This linguistic distinction suggested the testator did not intend to impose a legal obligation on Kelly to share proceeds with the residual beneficiaries.
Next, the court examined extrinsic evidence, including the solicitor’s notes from the will-preparation meeting. These notes indicated Landry’s primary goal was to ensure Kelly had a secure place to live after his death. He also expressed a desire to leave something for his daughter and extended family but did not want to create a life interest or complex legal obligations. Landry trusted Kelly to honour his wish voluntarily if she sold the home, which reflected his confidence in her judgment and his prioritization of her housing needs.
Ultimately, the court found that Landry’s phrasing and circumstances pointed to a moral, rather than legal, obligation. Applying the armchair rule, the court determined that the disputed clause did not create a binding trust.
Significance of the Decision
The decision underscores the armchair rule’s importance in resolving ambiguities in estate planning. It highlights that while courts strive to honour a testator’s intentions, those intentions must be expressed in clear, directive language to create enforceable legal obligations. Landry v. Christiansen-Hassett serves as a reminder to testators and legal professionals alike: carefully chosen wording and precise drafting are essential to avoid unintended disputes, ensuring that both wishes and directives are carried out effectively.
At Mills & Mills LLP, our lawyers regularly help clients with a wide range of legal matters including business law, real estate law, estate law, employment law, health law, and tax law. For over 140 years, we have earned a reputation amongst our peers and clients for quality of service and breadth of knowledge. Contact us online or at (416) 863-0125. The material provided through the Mills & Mills LLP website is for general information purposes only. It is not intended to provide legal advice or opinions of any kind.