Rather than uncertainty, the submission of the applicant was based on the facts that the respondent prepared the will and is a potential beneficiary. Accordingly, the applicant argued that paragraph 6.3 should arouse suspicion, therefore putting the onus on the respondent to prove that the testator knew and approved of the contents of the will. The applicant relied on Lakevold v. Simank,  BCJ No. 2390 (B.C.S.C.) in support of this position.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.