The Court of Appeals decision made in the 2026 case of Anroope et al v. Naqvi is a lesson in judicial humiliation. The Honourable Madam Justice Cory Gilmore, a highly experienced Judge who regularly sits on the Toronto Estates List, and is no fool, made a decision at the application level. By that, we mean the original decision was not based upon live evidence but rather written affidavits and oral argument. The case before Justice Gilmore was whether or not a fourth Will made by a father the year prior to his death was valid rather than the three Wills made earlier that year. Despite almost every warning sign that would have justified setting aside the last Will, Justice Gilmore found it to be valid. The Court of Appeal in February of 2026 put down the hammer and pointed out the many errors both factual and legal that Justice Gilmore made. The facts included two reports from a forensic handwriting expert who said that the signature in the last Will did not match the signature on the first three Wills. The Judge ignored the fact that the beneficiary under the first three Wills was a child and grandchild that had lived with the testator for over 30 years and had solely taken care of the willmaker. The fourth Will was sloppily drafted for free by a lawyer who was a business associate of a new beneficiary. The fourth Will contained an erroneous comment about the willmaker regularly being a skydiver and had made no fewer than 50 dives in the immediate year. The testator had never skydived in his life. Estate Litigation lawyers would have jumped all over this as did the Court of Appeal.
To paraphrase a comedian, there were more red flags in this fourth Will and its preparation than would be found in a Soviet era military parade. The Court of Appeal pointed out with excruciating detail the many mistakes made by Justice Gilmore. This author has not seen such an appellate court whipping in a very long time. Estate lawyers keep track of these decisions as there is a limited pool of court decisions in the area of Estate Litigation.
The successful appeal was argued by a legal team of a father and two children, who all practice together in a small boutique firm that describes itself as being family law experts. This is estate law and one can presume that the application decision by Justice Gilmore was so frail and flimsy that it did not need the services of an estate law litigator and expert.
The lesson for all of us is that going to court is capricious, unpredictable and expensive. That is why one should not interpret your lawyer’s recommendation for settlement as being a sign of weakness. It is rooted in the unpredictability of applying to court. Justice Gilmore, I have no doubt could be presented with the same facts with different names 99 times and would have come to a completely opposite decision to the one that she made in Anroope.
