What is the testator’s intent to give effect to the Codicil in his will?

I am satisfied the testator intended to give effect to the Codicil by affixing his signature at the top. He began the document with a description of its purpose, i.e. as a supplement to the Will made July 7, 2003. This sentence is followed by: “The main part of the 2003, seventh of July, remains the same”. Specific reference to the prior Will by characterization and date, along with his comments concerning revocation of parts, draws a “clear and cogent connection” between the Codicil and the Will (Oh v. Robinson, 2011 SKQB 200, 374 Sask.R. 175). Casting his mind to the effect the Codicil will have on the prior Will is a clear indication the testator intended the Codicil to speak from death. The balance of the Codicil reaffirms the testator’s desire to have his cats properly cared for following his passing, and adjusts some dispositions previously made under the Will. Having regard to these words, I am satisfied the Codicil was intended to speak from death and that by signing, he intended to give effect to it.

A secondary concern is the poor handwriting of the testator which makes portions of the Codicil illegible to those unfamiliar with his handwriting. This Court in Oh v. Robinson, at para. 21, said this about illegibility: 21 The fact that some of the portions of the will may be illegible or incomprehensible does not disqualify or prohibit the remaining portions of the will from satisfying the legal requirements for probate.