Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Validity of a notarial will allegedly obtained through captation (undue influence) over an elderly and vulnerable testator.
• Extent to which the testator’s grief, age, health issues and dependence on one child undermined free and informed testamentary intention.
• Credibility concerns arising from the main beneficiary’s evolving and inconsistent testimony about arranging the will and her relationship with the notary.
• Weight of circumstantial indicators of captation, including isolation dynamics, control over finances, presence at the notarial meeting, and unexplained departure from prior family treatment.
• Use of presumptions that must be “graves, précises et concordantes” to establish pressure or fraudulent maneuvers sufficient to annul a will.
• Consequences of annulling the will, including reversion to intestate devolution, an order to account for administration of the estate, and condemnation of the principal beneficiary to pay legal costs.

Background and family relationships
Sirouhie Kordian was born in Turkey in 1929 and married Sarkis Yenikomouchian in 1949. They had four children: three daughters, Sona, Seta and Anie, and one son, Manouk. Sirouhie was portrayed as a loving, rather timid and somewhat naïve woman, whose primary language was Armenian. She had limited command of French and did not speak or understand English, making her particularly dependent on others for interaction with formal documents and institutions. Following the sudden death of her husband in 2006, her son Manouk stepped into the role previously held by his father. He handled her financial affairs, ensured her transportation, accompanied her to appointments and maintained regular visits. Tensions arose within the siblings after their father’s death, notably around Anie’s discussions with their mother about her will and broader perceptions that Anie was manipulative and had had a more difficult life course than her siblings. Despite these tensions, the evidence showed that Sirouhie continued to have a good relationship with all of her children and grandchildren and treated them equally in affection, with a particular emotional bond to her only son.
 

Events leading to the July 2020 will
In December 2019, Manouk died at age 65. This loss had a profound impact on Sirouhie, who was then 90. She experienced intense grief, insomnia, confusion (including moments when she appeared to mistake her grandson Sarkis for her deceased husband), and a general decline in physical and mental health. She became less active, more dependent, and increasingly reliant on others for daily affairs. Around this time, her longstanding pattern of medical follow-up appears to have stopped: although her physician, Dr. Duong, had last seen her on 10 December 2019 and noted anxiety linked to her son’s death, no further consultations were scheduled for 2020 or early 2021 despite multiple health conditions requiring monitoring, including diabetes affecting her vision. Anie gradually took over the role previously filled by Manouk. She managed her mother’s medical appointments and transportation, assisted with her daily needs and obtained a banking power of attorney, thereby gaining significant control over her mother’s finances and access to the testator’s affairs during a period of marked vulnerability.
 

The July 2020 will and ensuing dispute
On 28 July 2020, approximately eight months after Manouk’s death, Anie drove her 91-year-old mother to a notary, Me Nora Ghazigian. At that meeting, a notarial will was executed. In it, Sirouhie designated Anie as universal legatee and liquidator of her succession, while granting particular legacies of $11,000 to each of her other two daughters, Seta and Sona. In case of Anie’s incapacity as liquidator, Anie’s children were named as substitutes. No other will existed, so if this instrument were to be invalidated, the estate would devolve according to the rules on intestate succession in the Civil Code of Québec. Sirouhie died on 4 February 2021 at age 91. Her succession consisted of an unencumbered immovable property, movable property and a bank account balance of $5,012.29 as of 5 May 2021. At the time of the hearing, no inventory had been drawn up, and the $11,000 legacies to Sona and Seta had not been paid. Anie, despite being named liquidator, had taken no steps to advance the administration of the estate. Sona and Sarkis (joined in interest by Seta as a mise en cause) brought proceedings seeking annulment of the July 2020 will on the basis of captation (pressure indue/undue influence) by Anie, as well as the appointment of Sona and Seta as liquidators.
 

Legal framework on testamentary freedom and captation
Under Quebec civil law, a will is a unilateral, revocable juridical act by which the testator disposes of property to take effect upon death, and freedom of testation is a core principle of succession law. That freedom, however, presupposes a will that is both validly formed and freely expressed. Capacity to make a will is presumed, even in elderly individuals with some degree of fragility, but the will may be annulled if vitiated by external circumstances amounting to fraud or undue pressure. The concept of captation, though not defined in the Civil Code, is described in jurisprudence as a form of dol consisting of a series of wrongful maneuvers—lies, calumny, ruses, or false statements—that induce the testator to make dispositions they would not otherwise have made. The party alleging captation bears the burden of proof, typically through presumptions that must be grave, precise and concordant; a mere suspicion of undue influence is insufficient. Courts assess captation holistically, examining the overall pattern of conduct rather than isolated acts. Quebec case law has identified recurring indicia of captation, including: the influencer’s choice of notary, active role in instructions and drafting, presence at execution, intensification and near exclusivity of their relationship with the testator, control over finances via powers of attorney, failure to account for administration, tensions with other potential heirs, isolation of the testator, efforts to efface other heirs from the testator’s mind, appointment as liquidator, prior gifts or advantages, sudden shifts in the testator’s attitude or dispositions, and arrangements around the funeral and communication of the will.
 

Court’s assessment of the evidence
The court considered both the implausibility of the testamentary scheme and the credibility of Anie’s testimony. The content of the will—essentially favoring Anie as sole heir while leaving relatively modest fixed cash legacies to Sona and Seta—did not reflect the long-standing reality of the family, where Sirouhie had remained close to all three daughters and their children, and where Seta and Sona had consistently cared for their mother. No convincing circumstance justified such a radical preference for Anie over her sisters. Anie’s evidence contained significant contradictions. She first claimed her mother had simply asked her to book a notary appointment without stating the purpose; later she acknowledged that, some five months after Manouk’s death, her mother explicitly asked her to contact the notary to prepare a will, meaning Anie knew the purpose of the meeting. She also minimized her relationship with Me Ghazigian, initially portraying the notary as a mere professional contact referred by her brother, then conceding that the notary was a former friend of her son Hagop (one of the substitute liquidators) from his youth. Historically, Sirouhie and her late husband had used another notary, Me Gaétan Séguin, including in settling Sarkis’s estate, yet Anie chose a different notary with a personal link to her family branch. Anie further asserted that although she was present at the notary’s office during the will signing, she neither intervened nor heard the discussions because she was sitting at a distance and both her mother and the notary spoke in low voices. She claimed not to know whether the notary read the will aloud and said she had no knowledge of the content at that time, while still affirming that the notary spoke Armenian to her mother. The judge found this narrative implausible. It was unlikely that a notary would explain a four-page testamentary document of major importance to a 91-year-old, illiterate woman with limited French by whispering, and equally unlikely that no reading of the will occurred and that Anie, present throughout, heard virtually nothing. The defense chose not to call the notary, despite having previously announced her as a witness, explaining this by saying that she had left practice and lived in Mexico. The judge drew an adverse inference from the absence of this potential corroborating witness.
The court also placed significant weight on the timing and context. The will was signed less than eight months after the death of Manouk, during a period when all witnesses—including Anie—conceded that Sirouhie was deeply affected, grieving, confused at times, less physically active and more reliant on assistance. Anie had obtained a banking power of attorney and was more involved than ever in her mother’s affairs. After Sirouhie’s death, Anie, although named liquidator, did not proceed with the inventory or payment of the specific legacies. She also handled funeral arrangements and communication about the death alone, informing her sisters of the passing but then cutting off contact, not sharing the content of the will, and leaving Sona and Seta to obtain a copy from the notary themselves months later. These elements aligned closely with several judicial indicators of captation: the chosen notary with a personal connection to the beneficiary, the beneficiary’s active role in arranging the testament, her presence at execution, intensified and asymmetric involvement with the elderly testator, control of finances under a power of attorney, tension with other potential heirs, and efforts to manage information about the death and the testamentary dispositions. In light of this, the court held that the plaintiffs had established serious, precise and concordant presumptions of undue influence exercised by Anie over her mother at the time of the July 2020 will. Anie’s unconvincing and evolving testimony failed to rebut these presumptions.
 

Ruling and consequences for the parties
The Superior Court concluded that the will of 28 July 2020 did not reflect Sirouhie’s freely and knowingly expressed wishes and that it had been obtained by captation. The notarial will naming Anie as universal legatee and liquidator, and leaving $11,000 to Sona and Seta, was therefore declared null. Given that no other testament existed, the court ordered that the succession devolve according to the legal rules of intestate succession under articles 653 and following of the Civil Code of Québec. As part of the remedial orders, Anie was directed to account for her administration of the estate from 21 February 2021 within 30 days of judgment, recognizing her prior de facto control over estate property under the contested regime. The court also appointed Sona and Seta as liquidators of the estate, with the consent of Sarkis, thereby removing Anie from any formal role in administering their mother’s succession. Finally, the court condemned Anie to pay the judicial costs of the proceedings. The successful parties are therefore the plaintiffs, Sona and Sarkis Yenikomouchian (with Seta aligned with their position), who obtained annulment of the will, restoration of intestate succession and appointment of Sona and Seta as liquidators. The judgment does not fix a specific monetary sum for damages or costs in their favor, nor does it quantify each heir’s share of the estate; the exact total amount of costs and monetary consequences cannot be determined from the decision itself.