How Long Do You Have to Contest a Will in Ontario? Deadlines & Rules

There is no single, uniform deadline to contest a will in Ontario. Instead, your timeline depends entirely on the legal mechanism you use: filing a Notice of Objection before probate expires after three years, a claim to invalidate a will may be subject to a two-year limitation period from discovery, and an application for dependant support must generally be brought within six months of probate issuance. Assuming you safely have three years to mount a full legal challenge is a critical mistake.

Summary of Key Deadlines to Contest a Will in Ontario

Because multiple statutes and civil rules govern Ontario estate litigation, individuals must differentiate between procedural notices and substantive court claims. The table below outlines the governing rules and operational windows.

1. Pre-Probate: Notice of Objection (Form 75.1) and the 3-Year Rule

Under the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, any individual who appears to have a financial interest in an estate can lodge a formal objection before the court issues a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee. Specifically, Rule 75.03(1) establishes:

“At any time before a certificate of appointment of estate trustee has been issued, any person who appears to have a financial interest in the estate may give notice of an objection by filing with the court a notice of objection (Form 75.1), signed by the person or the person’s lawyer, stating the nature of the interest and of the objection.”

Rule 75.03(2) dictates that a Notice of Objection expires three years after it is filed. However, filing Form 75.1 does not determine that the will is legally invalid. It acts as an interim procedural hold. Furthermore, under Rule 75.03(5), if an objector receives formal notice and fails to file Form 75.4 within 20 days, the probate application can move forward as if the objection had never been registered.

While the court retains authority to extend the three-year duration—as demonstrated in McLaughlin v McLaughlin, 2015 ONSC 3491 (para. 55), where the court extended an objection pending final motion disposition—extensions are never automatic. If your three-year window draws close, affirmative steps must be taken to secure an order.

2. Invalidating a Will: The Two-Year Limitation Period & Discoverability

Parties looking to contest a will in Ontario must scrutinize the basic limitation period. Under section 4 of the Limitations Act, 2002, a proceeding shall not be commenced in respect of a claim after the second anniversary of the day on which the claim was discovered.

Section 5(1) of the Act sets out that discoverability turns on the earlier of:

• The day the claimant knew that injury, loss, or damage had occurred, that it was caused by an act or omission of the defendant, and that a proceeding would be appropriate; or
• The day on which a reasonable person with the abilities and in the circumstances of the claimant first ought to have known of these matters.

This means the countdown does not invariably start on the date of the testator’s death. It commences when the facts establishing a potential challenge become known or reasonably discoverable. In Piekut v Romoli, 2019 ONSC 1190 (para. 45), the Ontario Superior Court observed that had a party responded to an application by actively challenging codicil validity, the two-year limitation period, subject to discoverability rules, would have applied.

Nonetheless, the boundary of this limitation rule is not settled for every scenario. The Court of Appeal for Ontario expressly stated in Neuberger v York, 2016 ONCA 191 (footnote 14):

“Nothing in these reasons is to be taken as having decided whether the Limitations Act applies to the bringing of an application under rule 75.”

Given this absence of a definitive appellate pronouncement across all Rule 75 proceedings, relying on the three-year Notice of Objection timeline as a safe haven to delay substantive litigation is an unreasonable legal risk. Litigants should assume the two-year discoverability window may strictly apply.

A Narrow Exception: Section 16(1)(a) of the Limitations Act, 2002 exempts proceedings seeking pure judicial declarations without any consequential relief. While applied in Piekut (para. 52) where the claimant sought only an order concerning validity, this carve-out does not automatically rescue claims seeking broader substantive remedy or estate distribution.

3. Contesting After Probate Has Been Issued (Rules 75.04 & 75.05)

The issuance of a Certificate of Appointment does not permanently extinguish an individual’s right to challenge testamentary documents, but the procedure shifts. Under Rule 75.05(1)(a), the court may, on motion, order that a certificate of appointment be returned to the court where the moving party seeks a determination of the validity of the testamentary instrument.

Similarly, Rule 75.04 permits any person appearing to have a financial interest to apply for revocation of the grant—such as where it was obtained erroneously. Once an order for return is issued under Rule 75.05(3), the estate trustee must surrender the original certificate, and the appointment cannot be acted upon pending disposition. These procedural rules do not establish standalone limitation clocks; your substantive challenge remains governed by the surrounding limitation principles.

4. Legal Grounds Required to Contest an Ontario Will

Personal dissatisfaction or a perceived lack of fairness does not constitute legal invalidity. To contest a will in Ontario, the challenger must present evidence supporting recognized legal grounds:

A. Lack of Formal Execution

Under sections 3 and 4(2) of the Succession Law Reform Act (SLRA), a will must be in writing, signed at its end by the testator (or directed agent in their presence), and acknowledged in the presence of two or more attesting witnesses present simultaneously, who then sign in the testator’s presence. Key statutory exceptions include:

• Holograph Wills: Wholly written and signed in the testator’s handwriting without witnesses (SLRA, s. 6).
• Virtual Witnessing: Allowed under section 4(3) of the SLRA provided one witness is a licensed lawyer and signatures occur concurrently via audiovisual technology.
• Substantial Compliance: Under section 21.1(1) of the SLRA, the Superior Court can validate an improperly executed document if satisfied it embodies the deceased’s testamentary intentions (subject to date-of-death statutory limits in s. 21.1(3)).

B. Lack of Testamentary Capacity

A testator must possess a “sound disposing mind” when signing. In McGrath v Joy, 2022 ONCA 119 (para. 50), the Court of Appeal re-articulated the required criteria. The testator must:

1. Understand the nature and effect of a will;
2. Recollect the nature and extent of their property;
3. Understand the extent of what is being bequeathed;
4. Remember the individuals they would reasonably be expected to benefit; and
5. Understand the nature of claims from those excluded.

C. Lack of Knowledge and Approval & Suspicious Circumstances

When execution formalities are observed and the testator appeared competent, knowledge and approval of contents are typically presumed. However, this presumption is rebuttable. As confirmed in Issa v. Aiello, 2025 ONSC 4055 (para. 27), presenting evidence of “suspicious circumstances” shifts the evidential burden back to the propounder to prove knowledge, approval, or capacity.

D. Undue Influence and Fraud

Unlike suspicious circumstances, the legal burden for proving undue influence stays firmly with the challenger (Issa, para. 27). Persuasion alone is insufficient. In Graham v. McNally Estate and Blais, 2024 ONSC 4006 (para. 64), the court emphasized that coercion is required:

“For the court to conclude that undue influence has been exerted by someone on the testator, the influence imposed on the testator must be ‘so overpowering that the document reflects the will of the influencer and not that of the deceased’.”

Speculation or unsupported claims of fraud do not suffice. As set out in Graham (para. 44), a party seeking formal proof of a will must adduce at least some evidence which, if accepted, calls its validity into question.

5. Claiming Dependant Support: The Strict 6-Month Deadline

Seeking dependant support is legally distinct from moving to declare a will invalid. Under sections 57(1) and 58(1) of the SLRA, a spouse, parent, child, or sibling who was receiving financial support from the deceased immediately before death, or whom the deceased had a legal obligation to support, may seek court-ordered provision if inadequate support was left.

Under section 61(1) of the SLRA, an application under section 58 cannot be made after six months from the grant of letters probate or letters of administration. The court maintains discretion under section 61(2) to allow a late application, but that authorization applies solely to estate assets remaining undistributed at the time of application.

Practical Checklist for Litigants

• If probate has not been issued, immediately prepare and lodge a Notice of Objection (Form 75.1) pursuant to Rule 75.03.
• Monitor your calendar strictly: if served with an objection-related notice, file Form 75.4 within 20 days.
• Do not assume the three-year objection timeline shelters your main action; initiate validity proceedings within two years of discovering material grounds under the Limitations Act, 2002.
• If a probate certificate has already been granted, bring an immediate motion under Rules 75.04 or 75.05 to revoke or compel return of the certificate.
• For dependant claims, bring your application within six months of probate to avoid competing against distributed assets.

Navigating contested probate matters demands compliance with precise statutory mechanisms. For comprehensive litigation support, visit Pax Law Corporation or review primary authority via the Ontario e-Laws Repository.

Frequently Asked Questions