Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The executor sought the court’s guidance on interpreting a residual clause in the will that appeared internally contradictory.

• The ambiguity centered on whether the entire residue was gifted to the daughter or partly earmarked for an annuity.

• The court found the will contained a patent ambiguity, visible from its text, permitting the use of indirect extrinsic evidence but not direct statements of intent.

• Interpretation clarified that the testator intended for the residue to go to the daughter, with part used to fund a lifetime annuity.

• Any remaining annuity corpus after the daughter’s death, or if misused, was directed to the testator’s granddaughters.

• Costs for both parties were ordered to be paid from the estate due to the reasonableness of seeking judicial direction.

Facts of the case and judicial findings

Robert Church, the executor of the estate of Kenneth Joseph Fedyk, brought an application before the Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench seeking interpretation of Fedyk’s will, specifically the residual clause which appeared contradictory. The core issue was whether Fedyk’s daughter, Melonie Karmarznuk, was to receive the entire residue of the estate outright, or if a portion of it was to be carved out and used to purchase a lifetime annuity in her favor.

The will first clearly states that the “rest and residue” of the estate is to be delivered to Ms. Karmarznuk “for her sole use and benefit absolutely.” However, immediately following this, it directs the executor to purchase an annuity providing her $24,000 annually for life. A further clause stipulates that any remaining residue upon her death should be divided between her two daughters (the testator’s granddaughters), suggesting some portion of the residue was expected to survive her lifetime. This apparent contradiction prompted Mr. Church to seek judicial guidance to ensure proper administration of the estate.

Legal analysis of ambiguity and admissible evidence

Justice D.J. Brown held that the will presented a patent ambiguity—a contradiction evident on its face—rather than a latent one that emerges only when surrounding circumstances are considered. As such, the court was permitted to rely on indirect extrinsic evidence (e.g., the testator’s family relationships, the size of the estate) but not direct statements from the testator or his instructions to his solicitor.

The court applied the "armchair rule," whereby it considers the facts as they would have been known to the testator when drafting the will. It determined that Mr. Fedyk intended for his daughter to receive the residue of the estate, but also wanted to secure a minimum monthly income for her through an annuity, ensuring financial stability for her lifetime. The annuity was to be purchased from the residue, not funded separately.

Outcome and interpretation of the will

The court concluded that Ms. Karmarznuk is entitled to both the full residue of the estate and the benefit of the annuity, with the annuity to be funded from the residue. The executor is to purchase the annuity immediately after settling specific bequests and taxes, ensuring a guaranteed income of $2,000 per month for life. If the annuity is collapsed, assigned, or otherwise misused during her lifetime, its remaining value is to revert to the estate. Upon her death, any remaining corpus of the annuity becomes part of the estate’s residue and is to be distributed equally to the two granddaughters.

The court emphasized that the testator did not intend for the entire residue to be locked into the annuity, nor did he intend for a portion of it to fall into intestacy. The structure of the will and the surrounding facts confirmed his intention to provide for his daughter both in terms of ongoing support and with access to the residue beyond the annuity requirement.

Costs and conclusion

Justice Brown commended Mr. Church for seeking clarification and explicitly stated that he was right to do so given the confusion created by the will’s drafting. The legal costs of both parties—the executor and the respondent daughter—were ordered to be paid out of the estate, in line with standard practice in probate disputes involving interpretation.

The decision reinforces the principle that an executor may properly seek judicial direction where ambiguity exists and that courts will look beyond literal readings to honor the testator’s overall intention.