Bill 23 (Alternate Witnessing of Documents Amendment Act) rewrites key execution rules across four provincial statutes so certain documents can be witnessed when the signer and witness are not physically together. It inserts a statutory definition of audio‑visual technology, recognizes ‘‘lawyer’’ as a defined actor and updates gendered language.
This change matters because it creates a statutory pathway for lawyers to complete affidavits, notarial acts, land instruments and wills at a distance — a practical modernization for remote and maritime clients, estate and conveyancing practice, and courts that rely on formal attestations. The Act deliberately leaves technical safeguards to the executive and professional rules, making those downstream instruments central to how remote witnessing will work in practice.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds an ‘‘audio‑visual technology’’ definition to four Acts and treats attendance via live video as equivalent to being ‘in the presence of’ a witness when statutory conditions are met. It makes lawyers (members in good standing of the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador) the authorized remote witnesses for those acts and modernizes pronouns and administrative references.
Who It Affects
Private practice lawyers who provide commissioning and notarial services, registry staff who process deeds and wills, estate practitioners and clients (including offshore fishers and rural residents) who rely on witnessed documents, and the Law Society whose rules can be imported into provincial regulations.
Why It Matters
By authorizing remote witnessing, the province reduces the need for in‑person execution while creating a regime where regulatory and professional standards — not only statute — decide technical safeguards. That allocation of authority will determine how reliable, uniform and litigable remote witnessing turns out to be.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act embeds a single working definition of ‘‘audio‑visual technology’’ into the Commissioners for Oaths Act, Notaries Public Act, Registration of Deeds Act, 2009, and the Wills Act. Each statute gains a cross‑reference that attendance through live video can count as attendance ‘‘in the presence of’’ a witness — but only where the witness is a lawyer and the witnessing complies with requirements set out later by regulation and professional rules.
Operational changes are targeted rather than universal. For commissioners and notaries the text clarifies that a barrister (now defined as ‘‘lawyer’’) and a notary public may witness signatures or administer oaths using live audiovisual methods provided the lawyer follows the requirements in regulation.
The Registration of Deeds Act enumerates who may prove an instrument and adds a specific rule that instruments witnessed via video must include original signatures of signers and witnesses before being presented for registration, retaining a physical signature element for land transactions.The Wills Act change is the most granular: it allows a will to be witnessed by video only when a witness to the signing is a lawyer and follows regulatory safeguards; the Act also makes clear that if only one witness is a lawyer, the other witness cannot be remote — preserving an in‑person attestation for at least one witness in that scenario. Across the Acts the province replaces gendered pronouns with neutral terms and substitutes ‘‘minister’’ for prior departmental references to streamline administration.Critically, the Lieutenant‑Governor in Council receives explicit regulatory authority to prescribe the technical requirements for remote attendance and may adopt (by reference) parts or all of the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador’s Rules, with or without modification.
That means the detailed identity‑verification, recordkeeping, technology standards and fees will ultimately be set out in regulation and/or professional rules rather than in statute, and lawyers will need to follow those instruments to rely on remote witnessing.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Only a ‘‘lawyer’’ — a member in good standing of the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador — can act as the authorized remote witness under the amended Acts.
The Wills Act permits video witnessing only when a witness is a lawyer, and if only one witness is a lawyer the other witness must be physically present (cannot be remote).
The Registration of Deeds Act requires that any instrument witnessed by video include the original signatures of signers and witnesses before submission for registration.
The Lieutenant‑Governor in Council can prescribe technical requirements for remote attendance and may adopt the Law Society’s Rules (in whole or in part) by reference into regulation.
Each amended Act adds the same statutory definition of ‘audio‑visual technology’: two‑way technology that lets signer and witness see, hear and communicate at all times.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Make barristers (lawyers) commissioners and permit video attendance subject to regulation
The Act inserts definitions and replaces the old ‘‘barrister’’ language with an explicit definition of ‘‘lawyer.’' Section 4 now treats a barrister’s signature on affidavits as valid when the signer attended by audiovisual means, but only when the barrister complies with regulatory requirements. Section 16 gives the executive power to set those requirements and to import Law Society rules by reference. Practically, lawyers who have been acting as commissioners can continue to do so remotely, but compliance with regulation will be the gating condition for validity.
Notarial acts may be done by video but the notary must be a lawyer and follow rules
Notaries’ powers are restated to make clear that witnessing, administering oaths and sealing documents can occur with the signer appearing by video, provided the notary is a lawyer and follows the regulation. The Act also standardizes administrative references and authorizes the same regulatory adoption mechanism used in Part I. For notaries this means a new layer of professional‑practice requirements will govern how video notarial acts are performed and what recordkeeping or technology standards are required.
Who can prove instruments and how remote witnessing interacts with registration
The deed registration statute receives the AV definition and updates who may prove an instrument. Subsection 15(2) now says that ‘‘in the presence of’’ can include attendance by video when the witness is an authorized lawyer and complies with the regulations. Importantly, where an instrument is witnessed by video the Act requires the original signatures of signers and witnesses to be attached before submission for registration, preserving a physical authentication step for land transactions. The section also grants the Lieutenant‑Governor in Council power to set AV requirements and to adopt Law Society rules by reference.
Permits video witnessing of wills but with a lawyer‑witness limitation
The Wills Act is amended to add the AV definition and to state that ‘‘in the presence of’’ can include video attendance when the witness is a lawyer and regulatory safeguards are met. The Act draws a distinct line: if only one witness is a lawyer, the non‑lawyer witness cannot be remote. That creates a hybrid execution path for wills — enabling remote witnessing in many cases but ensuring at least one in‑person attestation if one witness is not a lawyer.
Administrative clean‑up and liability protection
Throughout the four Acts the bill replaces gendered pronouns, updates references to ‘‘minister’’ and the Supreme Court, and tweaks appointment language for commissioners and notaries. The Registration of Deeds Act also restates registrar‑protection language so officials acting in good faith remain shielded from personal liability when performing statutory functions.
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
- Remote and maritime clients (rural residents, fishers, people abroad): They gain legal access without travel, particularly for urgent affidavits, wills and land transactions.
- Law firms and solo practitioners offering commissioning/notarial services: They can expand remote service offerings and bill for remote attendances subject to compliance with new professional and regulatory standards.
- Estate and conveyancing practice (solicitors, notaries): Reduced logistical friction in gathering witnesses for wills and deeds can accelerate closings and estate administration.
- Registries and courts: They receive a clearer statutory basis for accepting remotely witnessed instruments, reducing ad hoc disputes over execution form.
Who Bears the Cost
- Lawyers: They inherit new compliance duties — identity verification, technology and recordkeeping — and face malpractice or discipline risk if they fail to follow regulations or Law Society rules.
- Registrar and registry staff: They will need procedures and resources to verify remote witnessing compliance and to handle the logistics of matching remote attestations with original signatures.
- Law Society and regulators: The Society will shoulder rule‑making and possibly enforcement tasks if its rules are adopted by reference into regulation.
- Clients and third parties: While access improves, some clients will incur costs to obtain printed original signatures, notarized originals or travel when the Wills Act requirement prevents fully remote witnessing.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill’s core dilemma is familiar: expand access and continuity by allowing remote witnessing, but do so in a way that preserves evidentiary reliability and fraud protection — all while leaving the technical safeguards to regulations and professional rules. That trade‑off places a large role on regulators and the Law Society to get the execution details right, because statutory authorization without clear technical standards only relocates execution risk rather than eliminating it.
The Act delegates detailed risk‑control choices to the Lieutenant‑Governor in Council and the Law Society by permitting adoption of professional rules into regulation. That delegation speeds implementation but shifts hard policy choices (identity verification standards, recording/retention obligations, technology specifications and evidentiary presumptions) out of the legislature and into instruments with different transparency and scrutiny dynamics.
Operational frictions remain. Requiring original signatures for registration preserves a physical audit trail but undercuts some of the convenience of a purely electronic workflow: remote witnessing will still frequently require printing, signing and couriering originals.
The wills provision — allowing video only when a witness is a lawyer and forbidding remote status for a non‑lawyer witness when only one lawyer is present — reduces fraud risk but creates a split execution regime that may be confusing for lay signers and practitioners outside urban centres. Finally, concentrating remote‑witness authority in lawyers improves professional accountability but excludes other classes (for example non‑lawyer commissioners) who have historically provided local access in small communities.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.