Author:
In the case of Aulinger v. Oda, 2026 BCCA 13, the future of an estate came down to just four words written in a 1995 handwritten Will: “In case of our death.”
To a layperson, this might seem clear. But in a courtroom, those four words created a serious ambiguity, with several different possible interpretations.
The First Judge’s Decision: A Total Revocation
To understand the drama, we have to look at what happened in the lower court first (you can read the full backstory of “The Ghost Will” in our previous post).
In that initial hearing, the chambers judge looked at the 1995 Will and the fact that the wife, Daniela, had made a new Will in 2019. That 2019 Will explicitly revoked her prior declarations. The judge concluded that:
- The 1995 Will was only intended to work if the couple died simultaneously (at the exact same time), or if they died separately without either of them revoking.
- Because the wife had revoked her part of the document in 2019, the entire 1995 Will was “cancelled” for both of them.
This left the husband, Johannes, with no valid Will when he died in 2022. In legal terms, he died “intestate,” which would have shifted his entire estate to his current partner, Ms. Oda, based on s. 20 of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act (WESA).
The Ambiguity: What Does “In case of our death” Really Mean?
When the case reached the BC Court of Appeal, the judges identified a major problem with the first judge’s logic. The phrase “In case of our death” was deeply ambiguous. It created a fork in the road with two possible meanings:
- Meaning A (Simultaneous): “If we both die together in the same accident.”
- Meaning B (Successive): “Whenever the both of us have eventually passed away.”
If the court chose Meaning A, the will was useless because the couple died three years apart. If they chose Meaning B, the 1995 Will was still a valid set of instructions for Johannes’s estate.
The Court of Appeal’s Fix: Intent Over Everything
The Court of Appeal overturned the first decision, stating that the primary goal of any court is to find the testamentary intent—which is simply a fancy way of saying “what the person actually wanted.”
The Court explained that judges must follow a specific set of rules to solve these word puzzles:
1. The Primary Objective is the Will-Maker’s Intent The court’s job isn’t to look for a reason to throw a Will out; it’s to figure out what the person intended to happen to their money and property.
2. The Presumption Against Intestacy This is a core rule of BC law. The court assumes that if someone took the time to write a Will, they didn’t want to die “intestate” (without a Will). Therefore, if there are two ways to read a sentence, the court will almost always choose the one that keeps the Will alive.
Sitting in the “Armchair”
To find Johannes’s true intent, the Court used the “Armchair Rule.” They figuratively sat in his armchair in 1995 to look at his life. He was a young man, close to his wife’s parents, with no children.
The Court of Appeal decided it was highly unlikely that he only wanted his in-laws to inherit if he and his wife died in a simultaneous accident. It was much more likely he meant “whenever we are both gone.” By choosing this meaning, the Court saved the Will and ensured Johannes didn’t die intestate.
The Lesson: “Simple” Language is Expensive
While the Court of Appeal eventually found the right answer, the “simple” language used in 1995 led to a five-day trial and a costly appeal. Professional estate planning avoids these “word traps” by using specific language that accounts for every scenario—so a judge never has to guess what you were thinking.
Don’t leave your intentions to chance. The Estate Planning & Litigation group at LK Law focuses on removing ambiguity before it becomes a lawsuit. We draft documents that say exactly what you mean. Contact LK Law Today to Clarify Your Final Wishes.
This article is intended to be an overview of the law and is for informational purposes only. Readers are cautioned that this article does not constitute legal or professional advice and should not be relied on as such. Rather, readers should obtain specific legal advice in relation to the issues they are facing.
Read more about Aulinger v. Oda:
