The bill substantially modernizes New Brunswick’s Wills Act. It updates definitions (including a statutory definition of common‑law partner), lowers the age to make a will from 19 to 16 (for wills made after commencement), rewrites witness rules, and arms courts with broader powers to admit extrinsic evidence to determine testator intent.
It also abolishes several long‑standing common‑law presumptions and the doctrine of election, and introduces rules allocating liability when a devise or bequest is subject to a purchase‑money security interest (PMSI).
These are not merely tidy language edits. The changes alter who can make a will, who may witness one, how courts interpret testamentary language, how post‑will family breakdowns affect dispositions, and how secured debts tied to specific property are charged against beneficiaries.
Estate practitioners, trustees and secured lenders will need to revise practice checklists, templates and counsel to clients about new risks and remedial mechanisms (including a short court‑validation window for dispositions to attesting witnesses).
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill lowers the minimum testamentary age to 16 for wills made after commencement; modernizes definitions (including a statutory 2‑year common‑law partner test); rewrites witness competency and conflict rules and makes dispositions to attesting witnesses void unless saved by statute or court order; permits admission of extrinsic evidence without a precondition of ambiguity; and apportions responsibility for debts secured by purchase‑money security interests against the specific devised property.
Who It Affects
Estate lawyers, executors/personal representatives and probate courts; testators aged 16–18 and their families; beneficiaries and attesting witnesses (who face voiding rules and a six‑month validation window); and secured parties, particularly lenders with purchase‑money security interests in land or tangible personal property.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts interpretive practice toward pragmatic, evidence‑driven probate hearings and removes several presumptions that practitioners used to rely on when advising clients about lifetime transfers and bequests. It also creates a new, potentially material allocation of secured debt against devised property — a change that affects recovery patterns for secured creditors and the net value beneficiaries receive.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act recasts foundational terms and removes archaic language, adding a standalone definitions and interpretation Part. 'Will' is cast broadly to include codicils and writings in the nature of wills; 'common‑law partner' is defined by a two‑year cohabitation test, and the Act specifies that references to the law of another place mean that place’s internal law only (not its conflict‑of‑laws rules). Those textual changes aim to reduce ambiguity in application and harmonize bilingual drafting.
Substantively, the bill lowers the age at which a person may validly make, alter or revoke a will from 19 to 16 (but only for wills made after the provision begins). It tightens witness formalities by requiring witnesses to have capacity and to be of the age of majority, and it confirms that a person who signs for a testator cannot serve as that testator’s witness.
Critically, the Act preserves the ability to probate a will even if an attesting witness was technically incompetent at the time; however, any beneficial disposition in favour of an attesting witness (or that witness’s spouse/common‑law partner) is void unless saved by statutory exceptions (repayment of a debt, professional remuneration) or unless a court orders otherwise on application — and that application window is capped at six months after death unless the court extends it.On interpretation, the court is expressly empowered to consider extrinsic evidence — meaning evidence about word meanings, the testator’s circumstances at the time the will was made, and the testator’s intent — without first having to find an ambiguity. This expands the evidentiary toolkit available to judges and practitioners in will contests and construction matters.
The Act also replaces multiple old presumptions: it abrogates the common‑law presumptions that lifetime transfers to children are advancements, that bequests to creditors discharge debts, and that a later lifetime transfer of money revokes a prior bequest; it also rejects the doctrine of election that previously caused complex interplay when a testator purported to dispose of property the testator did not own.Family breakdown rules are reworked to address divorce, nullity, separation and common‑law breakdowns. In many cases the effect is to treat former spouses or former common‑law partners as if they predeceased the testator, but the statute sets out objective triggers for separation (e.g., two years’ living apart, active proceedings or division of property) and ties many of those rules to the commencement date so that not all prior wills are treated the same.
Finally, for property subject to a purchase‑money security interest (a PMSI registered under Land Titles, the Registry Act or the Personal Property Security Act), the Act makes devised beneficiaries primarily liable to the extent the debt is attributable to acquisition, improvement or preservation of that specific property, allocated proportionally if the PMSI covers multiple devised items. That PMSI rule applies only to wills made after commencement.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill lowers the minimum age to make a will to 16 — but only for wills made after the new provision comes into force.
A beneficial disposition to an attesting witness (or that witness’s spouse/common‑law partner) is void, subject to exceptions and a court may declare it valid on application — applications must be brought within six months of death unless the court extends the deadline.
Courts may admit extrinsic evidence to determine testator intent without requiring a prior finding of ambiguity or multiple meanings in the will’s language.
If a devise covers property subject to a purchase‑money security interest (PMSI) registered under Land Titles, Registry Act or the PPSA, beneficiaries are primarily liable for the debt proportionally to the extent it funded acquisition, improvement or preservation; that rule applies only to wills made after commencement.
The Act expressly abrogates three long‑standing common‑law presumptions (advancement to children, satisfaction of debt by bequest to creditor, and revocation by later transfer of equal amount) and limits the doctrine of election.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Modernized definitions and bilingual drafting fixes
The Act adds a new definitions and interpretation part that broadens 'will' and inserts a statutory definition of 'common‑law partner' (two years of continuous conjugal cohabitation). It also clarifies that references to the law of another place mean that place’s internal law only, and cleans up several French‑language terms. Practically, these edits reduce ambiguity in cross‑border cases and when wills use non‑technical language, and they establish consistent thresholds (e.g., the two‑year rule) used elsewhere in the Act.
Transitional application and non‑revival of previously revoked wills
The application provision makes the new Act apply to wills of testators who die on or after commencement, regardless of when the will was made, subject to several explicit transitional exceptions. It also clarifies that the Act does not validate wills that were invalid before commencement nor revive wills validly revoked before commencement. That patchwork of retroactivity‑style rules means practitioners must check the dates of will execution, death and any intervening events before advising on which law governs an estate.
Lowered testamentary age to 16 for new wills
The bill replaces the prior age rule and allows persons aged 16 and over, with mental capacity, to make, alter or revoke a valid will — but the rule applies only to wills made after the section comes into force. Estate practitioners must therefore continue to treat older pre‑commencement wills under the prior standard while advising younger clients who create wills afterwards under the new threshold and accompanying capacity framework.
Revised witness competency, subscription and void‑disposition regime
The Act requires witnesses to be of majority and have capacity; a signer on behalf of a testator may not serve as witness. It confirms that a will is not invalid merely because an attesting witness was incompetent. Nevertheless, any beneficial disposition to an attesting witness (or that witness’s spouse/common‑law partner) is void except where the disposition repays a debt to the witness, pays personal‑representative remuneration, or where two other non‑disqualified witnesses attest execution. A court can nevertheless declare such a disposition valid on application if it is satisfied of testator intent and absence of undue influence, but the applicant generally must proceed within six months of the testator’s death (subject to extension). This creates a narrow window for beneficiaries and witnesses to seek validation and reduces automatic probate‑time rescues.
Permits broad admission of extrinsic evidence to determine intent
Section 15.01 removes the common requirement that evidence of meaning or intent be tied to an ambiguity. The court may admit evidence about ordinary or specialized meanings of words, the testator’s circumstances when the will was made, and the testator’s intent on matters in the will. For practitioners this means judges will have explicit statutory authority to hear background material (letters, relationship evidence, expert meaning evidence) to construe wills, increasing the scope for evidentiary inquiries in contested matters.
New, objective tests for the effect of divorce, separation and common‑law breakdown
The statute displaces the presumption that a will is revoked by changes in circumstance and sets out specific consequences for divorce/nullity and for separation or breakdown of common‑law relationships. Many dispositions to former spouses/common‑law partners are revoked unless a contrary intention appears. The Act uses objective triggers — two years’ living apart, active proceedings, property division or an agreement — and ties some effects to the date those triggers begin relative to commencement, so the timing of separation or divorce matters to whether an old will is treated as if the spouse predeceased the testator.
Default succession path when a beneficiary predeceases or disposition fails
If a beneficiary predeceases the testator or a disposition fails for other reasons, the amendment prescribes a prioritized fallback chain: alternate beneficiary (if named), the deceased intended beneficiary’s issue (per intestacy rules if surviving), alternate’s issue, residuary beneficiaries pro rata, and finally intestacy. The court may depart from this order only if the testator’s contrary intention appears. The section also prevents distribution to persons disqualified under the new void‑disposition rules unless statutory exceptions or a court order apply.
New allocation of liability for purchase‑money security interests (PMSIs)
The Act defines 'purchase‑money security interest' and makes beneficiaries’ interests in devised property primarily liable to pay the debt attributable to acquisition, improvement or preservation of that property, allocated proportionally when a PMSI covers multiple devises. The secured party’s right to seek repayment from other estate assets is preserved, but the statutory primacy of the devisee’s liability can change recovery dynamics. This PMSI rule applies only to wills made after commencement and depends on registration under Land Titles, Registry Act or the PPSA.
Abolishes several common‑law presumptions and limits foreign law references
The Act abrogates three classic presumptions used in estate law (advancements, satisfaction of debt by equal bequest, and revocation by later transfer of equal sum) and narrows the doctrine of election so purported dispositions of property the testator does not own are void without harming the owner’s beneficiary rights. It also states that references to law of another place refer only to that place’s internal law. Practitioners will lose a set of default rules they previously invoked and must rely more on explicit testamentary wording or extrinsic evidence to ascertain intent.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Testators aged 16–18: the lowered age lets younger persons make valid testamentary dispositions (subject to capacity), increasing autonomy for mature minors.
- Common‑law partners and separated spouses: the statutory two‑year cohabitation and objective separation triggers provide clearer rules on when post‑will relationship breakdowns revoke dispositions, reducing uncertainty about survivor rights.
- Estate practitioners and courts seeking clarity: explicit provision allowing extrinsic evidence and modernized definitions give judges clearer statutory authority to resolve construction issues based on context and intent.
- Intended alternate beneficiaries and issue: the revised failure‑of‑disposition hierarchy makes the fallback distribution sequence explicit, reducing ad hoc arguments about survivorship and substitution in many cases.
Who Bears the Cost
- Personal representatives/executors: the PMSI rule can increase personal‑representative duties to allocate estate assets for secured debt on devised property and may complicate asset‑liability reconciliation.
- Secured creditors (lenders with PMSIs): statutory primary liability placed on beneficiaries for debts tied to specific property can affect lenders’ recovery expectations and collateral enforcement strategies.
- Attesting witnesses and beneficiaries who are witnesses: they face risk that dispositions in their favour are void and must act quickly to obtain court validation within the six‑month window, increasing urgency and potential litigation.
- Probate courts and registry offices: broader admissibility of extrinsic evidence and validation applications are likely to increase contested proceedings and evidentiary hearings, raising workload and costs.
- Estate planners and law firms: existing templates and advice on advancements, satisfaction of debts, and lifetime gifts must be revised; more nuanced transitional‑dating advice will be required, increasing compliance and advisory costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is modernization versus certainty: the bill modernizes and clarifies by broadening interpretive tools, abolishing outdated presumptions, and aligning obligations with modern family and secured‑transaction realities, but those same changes reduce textual finality and increase litigation risk and administrative burdens for executors, secured creditors and courts. Reasonable aims (giving courts more context and protecting certain classes of creditors or beneficiaries) therefore come at the cost of greater procedural and evidentiary uncertainty.
The Act’s permissive approach to extrinsic evidence trades textual certainty for contextual fairness. Allowing extrinsic evidence without a threshold finding of ambiguity will help courts do justice where wills use everyday language, but it increases the scope for collateral evidence battles, calls for expert testimony on word meanings, and invites hindsight arguments about intent — all of which raise costs and delay distribution.
Practitioners should expect more contested evidentiary hearings rather than purely document‑based probate.
The new PMSI rule reallocates financial responsibility in a way that can advantage or disadvantage secured parties depending on the registration status and the estate’s composition. Although the secured party retains a right to pursue other estate assets, beneficiaries will now face a statutory primary charge that may reduce net inheritances and encourage creditor‑beneficiary skirmishes.
Similarly, abrogating traditional presumptions removes a set of default inferences that formerly simplified disputes over lifetime transfers; removing them forces courts to look harder for explicit testamentary intent but also removes tools that sometimes resolved cases quickly.
Finally, the combination of voiding dispositions to attesting witnesses with a short six‑month window for validation creates practical urgency but also a litigation trap: beneficiaries who are witnesses may have little time and few clues about whether the court will exercise its discretion, and executors must decide whether to pay contested amounts or hold assets pending applications. The transitional rules — tying many effects to commencement dates and to when separation periods begin — create an extra layer of complexity for older wills, making date‑sensitive legal advice essential.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.