The Importance of Witnessing Your Will: Lessons from Rehak v. MacDougall, 2026 BCCA 192

A will that is not properly witnessed is a will that is defective. A recent court decision shows just how important proper witnessing is, and how ensuring your will is witnesses can protect a testator’s wishes after thor death.

Even where a disgruntled beneficiary raises serious concerns regarding the authenticity of a will, courts are able to uphold the validity of a will if it was correctly signed and witnessed, and there is no convincing evidence of fraud, undue influence, or incapacity.

Rehak v. MacDougall reinforces  that a properly witnessed will is imperative in order to protect a testator’s intentions after their passing.

Why Witnessing a Will Matters

Witnessing a will is a legal requirement, but it also serves practical functions that matter if the will is later disputed. Witnesses confirm that the testator signed the document, help show that the signing happened voluntarily, and provide independent evidence of what occurred at the time the will was executed. Their presence also reduces the risk of later claims that the document was forged or altered. When a will is properly witnessed, courts are more likely to uphold it unless clear evidence shows fraud, undue influence, or incapacity.

The Dispute in Rehak v. MacDougall

The deceased’s estate planning reflected a long and changing family history. He was married to his first wife for nearly three decades, and they had three children together. Although they divorced in 1994, they remained on good terms after the separation.

Later that same year, he married a second wife. Before the marriage, they signed a prenuptial agreement that kept their finances separate and stated that neither spouse’s financial position would be shared or divided on death or separation.

Over time, he updated his estate plan several times. Earlier wills provided for both his children and his second wife. By the time he signed his final will in 2016, the structure of his estate had shifted. He left his interest in the family home, vehicle, and boat to his children, while leaving bank accounts, life insurance proceeds, and the residue of the estate to his former spouse.

After his death in 2022, the second wife challenged the validity of the 2016 will.

Why a Handwriting Expert Was Not Enough

The court had to decide whether the 2016 will was properly signed and executed. The challenger relied on a handwriting expert who said there was a “reasonable degree of probability” that the signature was not genuine. The court gave that opinion limited weight compared to the evidence of the attesting witnesses who were present at the signing.

An attesting witness is someone who watches the testator sign the will and then signs it themselves to confirm they saw the signing and that the required formalities were followed.

The attesting witnesses gave the stronger evidence. One witness clearly described the signing and confirmed he saw the testator sign and date the will in front of both witnesses, who then signed the document. The second witness confirmed that the document before the court was the same one he had witnessed, even though he could not recall every detail. This firsthand evidence confirmed how the will was executed and showed that it met the legal requirements for validity.

Why the Court Accepted the Will

The judge found that the will met the legal requirements for validity. A witness who clearly remembered the signing gave the most persuasive evidence. The witness confirmed that the deceased signed the will in front of both witnesses, and the court accepted that account as reliable.

The court also noted the absence of evidence suggesting alteration, tampering, or manipulation of the document after signing. It found no indication that the deceased lacked capacity or acted under undue influence when making the will.

The handwriting expert’s opinion did not outweigh the evidence from the attesting witnesses. Although expert analysis can assist the court, it does not displace firsthand accounts from people who observed the signing. The court preferred the testimony of the witnesses, supported by the surrounding circumstances, over a retrospective assessment of the signature.

Lessons from Rehak v. MacDougall

The decision in Rehak v. MacDougall, highlights how proper execution affects whether a will stands up in court. Courts place considerable weight on evidence from attesting witnesses who were present at the signing and can describe how the document was executed. Expert handwriting evidence may assist, but it does not usually override clear firsthand evidence of execution. Courts also require more than suspicion to question a will, and a properly executed will carries a legal presumption that it reflects the testator’s intentions.

For anyone preparing a will, Rehak v. MacDougall shows that careful execution with independent witnesses reduces the risk of later disputes and protects testator’s wishes.